Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41340105›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2025

A scoping review comparing individual and multi-level physical activity interventions in rural women in the United States.

Katrina L Wilhite, Alexis Thrower, Sarah Modlin, Meiling Zheng, Carly Williamson Rogers, Elly Marshall, Virginia Desouky, Christiaan G Abildso, Cynthia K Perry, M Renée Umstattd Meyer and 1 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Katrina L WilhiteEpidemiology and Biostatistics, West Virginia University, 64 Medical Center Drive, PO Box 9190, Morgantown, WV, 26506, USA. katrina.wilhite@hsc.wvu.edu.
Alexis ThrowerExercise Physiology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA.
Sarah ModlinEpidemiology and Biostatistics, West Virginia University, 64 Medical Center Drive, PO Box 9190, Morgantown, WV, 26506, USA.
Meiling ZhengEpidemiology and Biostatistics, West Virginia University, 64 Medical Center Drive, PO Box 9190, Morgantown, WV, 26506, USA.
Carly Williamson RogersExercise Physiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Elly MarshallEpidemiology and Biostatistics, West Virginia University, 64 Medical Center Drive, PO Box 9190, Morgantown, WV, 26506, USA.
Virginia DesoukyWest Virginia University Libraries, Morgantown, WV, USA.
Christiaan G AbildsoWest Virginia University Extension, Morgantown, WV, USA.
Cynthia K PerrySchool of Nursing Oregon Health &, Science University Portland OR, Portland, USA.
M Renée Umstattd MeyerPublic Health, Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA.
Bethany Barone GibbsEpidemiology and Biostatistics, West Virginia University, 64 Medical Center Drive, PO Box 9190, Morgantown, WV, 26506, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWomen residing in rural areas of the United States tend to have worse cardiovascular, mental, and pregnancy-related health than their urban counterparts. Physical activity is a modifiable and likely promising strategy to reduce these health disparities. The aim of this review is to summarize physical activity interventions in rural women in the US using the socio-ecological model of health framework.

methodsWe conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature in Medline, CINAHL Complete, Web of Science, and PsychINFO in August 2023. Studies had to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, quantitatively assess physical activity effects of an intervention in the US, include women who were on average aged 18 years or older and live in a rural setting, and be written in English. Studies that did not separately analyze the effects of physical activity interventions on rural, women were excluded. We narratively synthesized the evidence and, in studies with a comparison group, calculated pooled estimates to compare effects between individual vs multi-level approaches. Multi-level interventions were defined as those intervening at two or more levels of the socio-ecological model. We used an adapted GRADE approach to assess study quality.

resultsOur search yielded 41 reports on 38 different interventions that met our eligibility criteria (24 individual and 17 multi-level). After initial completion of the intervention (n = 38), 19/23 individual (83%) and 11/15 multi-level (73%) interventions increased physical activity. Pooled estimates indicated that multi-level interventions increased physical activity to a greater extent (d 1.09 [-0.44, 2.16]) than individual-level interventions (d 0.18 [-0.26, 0.62]). Limited studies included measurements of feasibility, acceptability, strengths, and barriers or defined rurality, identifying a need to better report these measures. Considerations for designing interventions include ensuring that participants feel supported, employing strong interventionists, new technology, and cost-effectiveness.

conclusionsOur results found that more individual-level interventions increased physical activity compared to multi-level interventions. Yet, meta-analysis results suggest that multi-level interventions yielded a larger pooled effect than individual-level interventions; however, with overlapping confidence intervals, we cannot definitively claim that either approach was more successful. More high-quality interventions, including randomized controlled trials, are needed. Reporting should be detailed and thorough.

Indexed as

ExerciseHealth PromotionRural PopulationFemaleHumansUnited StatesPhysical activityRuralWomen

Identifiers

PMID41340105
PMCPMC12676838

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.