ArticleBMJ open2020
Identifying the facilitators, constraints and barriers of community indoor walking programmes: protocol for a realist synthesis.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPhysical inactivity is a costly and leading health risk factor. Engaging in moderate or more intense regular physical activity reduces premature mortality at the population level. Walking is a viable option for achieving the recommended level of physical activity. Yet, the sedentary lifestyle is trending. Determinants of physical activity may be personal, social or environmental. Health promotion endeavours aiming to enhance population-level physical activity are reported in the literature. However, a full range of factors influencing the development and implementation of sustainable indoor walking programmes is unclear. The current review protocol is aimed at describing a process of realist synthesis to uncover contexts, mechanisms and outcomes of indoor walking intervention programmes, which might reveal facilitators, constraints and barriers of planning, implementing and participating in indoor walking initiatives open for the members of the general public. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will employ a realist synthesis to determine successes or failures in certain circumstances for specific stakeholders, which will aid in developing a sustainable mall walking health promotion and community engagement programme. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method articles and reports will be screened for intervention theories and models in order to identify elements of programmes that may be linked to the success or failure of the interventions. Data related to the context, mechanism and outcome of the interventions will be collected, analysed and synthesised iteratively until a theoretical understanding develops, which might explain the intricacies of the success and failure of identified indoor walking programmes. The review process will be conducted and evaluated by using the recommended tools. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval, such as Conjoint Health Research Ethics Board, was not required for this study because no direct interaction with patients will occur for data collection and analysis. We will disseminate directly to the scholarly community through publication and presentation and may post on social media or websites. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020150415.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.