Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29141646›Full record

SynthesisThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2017

Physical activity and the environment: conceptual review and framework for intervention research.

Jenna Panter, Cornelia Guell, Rick Prins, David Ogilvie

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Development of a Framework for Scaling Up Community-Based Health Promotion: A Best Fit Framework Synthesis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jenna PanterMRC Epidemiology Unit & Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), Box 285, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK. jenna.panter@mrc-epid.cam.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-8870-718X
Cornelia GuellMRC Epidemiology Unit & Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), Box 285, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK.
Rick PrinsMRC Epidemiology Unit & Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), Box 285, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK.
David OgilvieMRC Epidemiology Unit & Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), Box 285, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK.

Funding

Department of Health PDF-2012-05-157Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/6Medical Research Council MR/K023187/1Research Trainees Coordinating Centre PDF-2012-05-157
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChanging the physical environment is one way to promote physical activity and improve health, but evidence on intervention effectiveness is mixed. The theoretical perspectives and conceptual issues discussed or used in evaluative studies and related literature may contribute to these inconsistencies. We aimed to advance the intervention research agenda by systematically searching for and synthesising the literature pertaining to these wider conceptual issues.

methodsWe searched for editorials, commentaries, reviews, or primary qualitative or quantitative studies in multiple disciplines by electronic searches of key databases (MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process, Web of Science, Cochrane Reviews, ProQuest for dissertations, Health Evidence, EPPI-Centre, TRID and NICE) and snowballing. We extracted theoretical and conceptual material and used thematic analysis in an in-depth, configurative narrative approach to synthesis.

resultsOur initial searches identified 2760 potential sources from fields including public health, sociology, behavioural science and transport, of which 104 were included. By first separating out and then drawing together this material, we produced a synthesis that identified five high-level conceptual themes: one concerning outcomes (physical activity as a behaviour and a socially embedded practice), one concerning exposures (environmental interventions as structural changes) and three concerning how interventions bring about their effects (the importance of social and physical context; (un) observable mechanisms linking interventions and changes in physical activity; and interventions as events in complex systems). These themes are inter-related but have rarely been considered together in the disparate literatures. Drawing on these insights, we present a more generalisable way of thinking about how environmental interventions work which could be used in future evaluation studies.

conclusionsEnvironmental and policy interventions are socially embedded and operate within a system. Evaluators should acknowledge this, and the philosophical perspective taken in their evaluation. Across disciplinary fields, future studies should seek to understand how interventions work through considering these systems, the context in which interventions take place, and the (un) observable mechanisms that may operate. This will help ensure that findings can be more easily interpreted and widely applied by policymakers. We hope that highlighting these conceptual issues will help others to interpret and improve upon a somewhat contested evidence base.

Indexed as

Environment DesignExerciseHealth BehaviorHumansEnvironmentEvaluationInterventionPhysical activitySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID29141646
PMCPMC5688667

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.