Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35742582›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

The Effectiveness of Planning Interventions for Improving Physical Activity in the General Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Sanying Peng, Ahmad Tajuddin Othman, Fang Yuan, Jinghong Liang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Interventions on Barriers to the Participation of Adolescents in Physical Activity: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. 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.

Sanying PengPhysical Education Department, Hohai University, Nanjing 210024, China.ORCID 0000-0001-6007-7403
Ahmad Tajuddin OthmanSchool of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang 11800, Malaysia.
Fang YuanCollege of International Languages and Cultures, Hohai University, Nanjing 210024, China.
Jinghong LiangDepartment of Maternal and Child Health, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510080, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9237-7291

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Planning interventions such as action planning (AP) and coping planning (CP) have been recognized as influential strategies in promoting physical activity (PA), but mixed results of existing evidence have been observed. This study aims to perform a systematical meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of planning interventions for improving PA in the general population. Eight databases, including Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ProQuest, CNKI, and Wanfang Data, were searched to locate relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from their inception to 31 December 2021. In total, 41 trials with 5439 samples were included in this systematic review, and 35 trials were used in our meta-analysis. The results showed that PA was better promoted in the planned intervention group compared to the control group (SMD = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.25-0.44, I

Indexed as

Adaptation, PsychologicalExerciseHumansMaleRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicaction planningcoping planningimplementation intentionsmeta-analysisphysical activityplanning interventions

Identifiers

PMID35742582
PMCPMC9223740

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.