ArticleSystematic reviews2025
The application of design thinking in physical activity research: a protocol for a scoping review.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2025. 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the many health benefits, global levels of physical activity remain insufficient. Traditional approaches to promoting physical activity have shown limited success, indicating the need for innovative strategies. Human-centred design thinking (HCDT) is a creative problem-solving and solution generation approach that offers a novel method for developing tailored interventions by engaging communities and understanding their specific contexts. However, it is unclear to what extent HCDT is being applied in physical activity research. The purpose of this protocol is to specify how a scoping review will be conducted to identify, explore, and map the application of HCDT in physical activity research.
methodsThe scoping review protocol will follow Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework, encompassing five stages: identifying the research question; identifying relevant studies; selecting eligible studies; charting the data; and collating, summarising, and reporting the results. The scoping review will follow the reporting guidance in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses protocols (PRIMSA-P) and the PRIMSA-P checklist for reporting scoping reviews. The database literature search will be conducted using PubMed, SportDiscus, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, ProQuest, SCOPUS, and Web of Science. The inclusion criteria include: qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods studies or protocol papers; full-text availability; published after 2016 and in English; and studies with explicit use of HCDT. Two reviewers will screen titles, abstracts, and full texts for inclusion. Two reviewers will extract the data from included studies using a data extraction table. Findings from the studies will be aggregated to summarise recurring themes via a narrative report. DISCUSSION: It is unknown how HCDT is currently being applied in physical activity research, despite its proven potential to address complex health challenges and offer innovative solutions. This scoping review will provide an overview of the current utilisation of HCDT, such as which HCDT approaches and activities are applied most often and where HCDT is being used for physical activity (i.e. populations, geographies). The scoping review findings will inform researchers, practitioners, and policymakers about the current state of HCDT in physical activity research. SCOPING REVIEW REGISTRATION: This protocol has been registered within the Open Science Framework platform: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/F94PZ ).
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.