ReviewPreventive medicine reports2022
Evaluating physical activity interventions for socioeconomically disadvantaged adults through the RE-AIM framework: A systematic review of experimental and non-/quasi-experimental trials.
Review in Preventive medicine reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evidence-based summary and clinical practice suggestions of health education for diabetes mellitus with periodontitis.BMC oral health · 2026Pooled it
- Associated factors, barriers, and interventions to promote physical activity and reduce sedentary time in academics: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Understanding healthy eating and physical activity community-centred behaviour change interventions for underserved populations: A mixed methods rapid review.British journal of health psychology · 2026Review
- Applying RE-AIM to evaluations of Veterans Health Administration Enterprise-Wide Initiatives: lessons learned.Frontiers in health services · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The promotion of physical activity in people from lower social strata is a public health priority. Previous reviews of physical activity interventions among socioeconomically disadvantaged adults have focused on intervention effectiveness without considering their translation into practice. This review utilised the RE-AIM framework (Reach, Efficacy/Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) to (1) evaluate the extent to which experimental and non-/quasi-experimental trials of interventions to promote physical activity among socioeconomically disadvantaged adults report on issues of internal and external validity and (2) to provide recommendations for future intervention studies. Four databases were searched through June 2021. We included studies published in English or German since 2000 that tested physical activity interventions for socioeconomically disadvantaged adults. Two researchers coded all studies using a validated RE-AIM data extraction tool with 61 indicators referring to internal and external validity. Binary coding (yes = 1/no = 0) was applied to calculate the number and percentage of studies reporting each of the indicators. We included 39 studies of which 22 were non-/quasi-experimental trials. Indicators of reach were most frequently reported (59.2%), followed by implementation (38.9%) and efficacy/effectiveness (28.9%). Dimensions related to external validity were least frequently reported (adoption: 21.9%, maintenance: 17.8%). Few differences were found between experimental and non-/quasi-experimental trials. Analysis showed overall poor reporting of components related to internal and external validity. We recommend that future research should increase attention on reporting indicators of internal and external validity to facilitate their translation and implementation into real world settings.
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.