ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Increasing opportunities for movement in Nova Scotia, Canada: a community case study.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Rural and aging populations in Nova Scotia experience high burdens of chronic disease linked to insufficient physical activity and excessive sedentary time. Objectives: To describe the CoM Phase 1 actions across four Nova Scotian communities, detail the participatory evaluation approach, and share early implementation insights. Methods: CoM applies a socio-ecological and participatory approach. Four communities were selected via a competitive application process assessing readiness and investments for active transportation. Communities received funding, communication support, and access to a multisectoral network to develop and implement action plans. A multi-phase, mixed-methods evaluation (Phase 1: Fall 2022-Spring 2023) tracked activities and outcomes. Results: Phase 1 findings show that three communities formed leadership teams, delivered social programs, improved infrastructure, and initiated a public engagement campaign to promote a culture of movement. One community experienced a delay in leadership formation due to staff leave; however, existing leaders and partners were leveraged to drive project actions. Feedback from communities shows early indicators that CoM has strengthened community capacity for cross-sector collaboration and resource mobilization. Conclusion: This community case study offers guidance for others to consider when implementing and evaluating community movement initiatives. Early findings align with existing evidence which suggest that pairing environmental changes with social supports and sustained partnerships to be feasible and promising for implementation potential in rural, aging contexts. Phase 1 evaluation concentrated on process outputs that establish the groundwork for future outcome assessments. Subsequent phases will build on these foundations to further examine changes in movement behaviors, participation, and community capacity.
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.