ReviewDiscover public health2025
Opportunities for physical activity research in Puerto Rico: a review of the literature.
Review in Discover public health, 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
Puerto Rico (PR) is the most physically inactive jurisdiction in the United States, with half of its population being inactive. Understanding the evidence on physical activity (PA) research in PR is crucial to advancing the field. This narrative review aimed to examine existing literature on PA in PR and evaluate the current research capacity in this area. This type of review was necessary due to the limited studies on PA in PR and the broad scope of the research question. Each study was assigned a phase (1 through 5) based on the Behavioral Epidemiology Framework (BEF) and the socio-ecological model for determinants/correlates. Following PRISMA guidelines, seven databases were systematically searched for English and Spanish articles, resulting in 26 eligible studies out of 797 records screened. The included studies focused on the following BEF phases, with the majority (16, 61.6%) concentrating on Phase 3, which involved identifying correlates, determinants, mediators, or moderators. Followed by Phase 4 (intervention evaluation), with seven studies (26.9%). Two studies (7.7%) were addressed in Phase 2 (developing/validating methods), and only one study (3.8%) focused on Phase 1 (establishing links between PA and health). No studies explored Phase 5 (translation into policy/practice). Overall, these patterns highlight a field that has identified who is inactive but has yet to develop mature measurement systems, strong causal evidence, or scalable solutions. We recommend forming transdisciplinary, diverse, and inclusive teams comprising researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and community members to enhance the evidence base and translate it into effective PA policies and practices. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12982-025-01041-3.
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.