Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37721373›Full record

SynthesisHealth promotion international2023

Process evaluations of health-promotion interventions in sports settings: a systematic review.

Angie S X Lim, Matthew J Schweickle, Caitlin Liddelow, Sarah K Liddle, Stewart A Vella

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health promotion international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Barriers and Enablers to Implementing Community Sports-Based Mental Health Promotion Initiatives: A Qualitative Study.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Angie S X LimGlobal Alliance for Mental Health and Sport, School of Psychology, University of Wollongong, Northfields Avenue, Wollongong, New South Wales, 2522, Australia.ORCID 0009-0004-1173-3127
Matthew J SchweickleGlobal Alliance for Mental Health and Sport, School of Psychology, University of Wollongong, Northfields Avenue, Wollongong, New South Wales, 2522, Australia.
Caitlin LiddelowGlobal Alliance for Mental Health and Sport, School of Psychology, University of Wollongong, Northfields Avenue, Wollongong, New South Wales, 2522, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1083-5979
Sarah K LiddleTurner Institute for Brain and Mental Health, School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, 18 Innovation Walk, Clayton, Victoria, 3800, Australia.
Stewart A VellaGlobal Alliance for Mental Health and Sport, School of Psychology, University of Wollongong, Northfields Avenue, Wollongong, New South Wales, 2522, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sports settings have been identified as an ideal place to conduct complex multi-level health-promotion interventions, with the potential to engage a broad audience. Whilst the benefits of delivering health-promotion interventions in sports settings are well documented, such interventions' real-world implementation and success must be better understood. Process evaluations can be conducted to provide information related to an intervention's fidelity, replication, scaling, adoption, and the underlying mechanisms driving outcomes. This systematic review summarizes how process evaluations of health-promotion interventions are conducted in sports settings and highlight facilitators and barriers to health-promotion intervention delivery using narrative synthesis. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, searches included original peer-reviewed articles from inception-January 2023. We searched eight electronic databases: Academic Search Complete; MEDLINE, PsycARTICLES; PsycINFO; SPORTSDiscus with Full Text; MEDLINE; SCOPUS; Pub Med, and Pro Quest Central. Thirty-two studies were included. Findings suggest that most process evaluations of health-promotion interventions have acknowledged the inherent complexity of sports settings, and investigated factors that explain their intervention's success (e.g. trust building, engagement). However, poor use of process evaluation frameworks or guidelines resulted in wide variations of how process evaluations are conducted and reported, which made findings difficult to integrate and standardize with consistency. Accordingly, this review provides a guide on how future process evaluations can be conducted to improve health-promotion interventions' transparency, replicability and reliability in real-world settings.

Indexed as

Health PromotionSportsHumansNarrationReproducibility of Resultshealth-promotionimplementation scienceprocess evaluationsettings-based worksports

Identifiers

PMID37721373
PMCPMC10506172

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.