ReviewInternational journal for equity in health2023
Population-based physical activity promotion with a focus on health equity: a review of reviews.
Review in International journal for equity in health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advancing equity and value in United States healthcare: an umbrella review.International journal for equity in health · 2026Pooled it
- The impact of public policy on socioeconomic equity in physical activity: a systematic review.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2026Pooled it
- Effect of Environment on the Cognition of Older Adults: A Narrative Review.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Associations between leaderboard usage in physical activity apps and perceived stress among university students: the roles of social comparison and physical activity.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- The dominance of leisure-time physical activity research: implications for health inequalities.International journal of public health · 2026Article
- Interventions for health equity with a One Health focus: a review of reviews.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Which population-level interventions promote physical activity equitably across socioeconomic groups? A rapid systematic review.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Associations of weekend warrior and regular physical activity patterns with prevalence of hypertension by socioeconomic status in Korean adults.Clinical hypertension · 2026Article
- Exploring meso- and macro-level contextual factors associated with inequalities in program adoption during statewide scale-up of TransformUs Primary, a whole-school physical activity intervention.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2025Article
- Evidence on the effectiveness and equity of population-based policies to reduce the burden of type 2 diabetes: a narrative review.Diabetologia · 2025Review
- Prioritizing a research agenda on built environments and physical activity: a twin panel Delphi consensus process with researchers and knowledge users.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2023Article
- Enhancing physical activity through a relational artificial intelligence chatbot: A feasibility and usability study.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe extent to which people are physically active is dependent upon social gradients. Numerous studies have shown that especially people with social disadvantages do not meet the physical activity (PA) recommendations. A promising strategy to alleviate this issue are approaches that promote PA in the general population. In addition, several researchers have raised concerns that population-based health interventions may increase health inequities. The aim of the current review of reviews was therefore to identify successful population-based PA promotion approaches with a particular focus on health equity.
methodsSix electronic databases were examined for systematic reviews on population-based PA promotion for the period 2015 to 2021. A reference list and grey literature search were also conducted. Two independent reviewers used inclusion/exclusion criteria to screen titles and abstracts of the potentially relevant literature and conducted a quality assessment for each identified review. All included reviews of population-based approaches for PA promotion with a focus on disadvantaged populations and/or health equity were narratively summarized.
resultsOur search resulted in 4,411 hits. After a systematic review process, six reviews met the inclusion criteria and were included after they were all rated as high quality. We identified that mass-media campaigns, point-of-decision prompts, environmental approaches, policy approaches, and community-based multi-component approaches can promote PA in the general population. Across populations with social disadvantages mass-media campaigns, point-of-decision prompts and policy approaches are likely to be effective as long as they are tailored. Regarding environmental approaches, the results are inconsistent. None of the reviews on community-based multi-component approaches provided evidence on health equity.
conclusionThere are several effective approaches to promote PA in the general population but evidence regarding health equity is still sparse. Future studies should therefore pay more attention to this missing focus. Furthermore, there is a lack of evidence regarding the type of tailoring and the long-term impact of population-based approaches to PA promotion. However, this requires appropriate funding programmes, complex study designs and evaluation methods.
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.