ArticleJournal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine2026
Evaluating the Healthy Cities initiative: A scoping review of process evaluations.
Article in Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Healthy Cities initiative, initially a grassroots movement and later adopted by the World Health Organization (WHO), is a health promotion approach that was developed primarily to increase municipal governments' capacities to address citizen health. The Healthy Cities initiative aims to incorporate health within urban policymaking through local intersectoral, community-driven collaboration. Given that the Healthy Cities movement has been underway for several decades, understanding how the Healthy Cities initiative itself has been evaluated is important. This is particularly timely given recent major shifts in global health governance, including funding cuts at the WHO that may have repercussions for efficiency and results. In this study, we investigate how Healthy Cities projects have been evaluated over the years. We conducted a scoping review reported in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We searched for both peer-reviewed and grey literature in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, SCOPUS, and the WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing (IRIS) from database inception to the date the search was conducted. Our scoping review identified 2206 non-duplicate results for screening, which yielded a total of 95 texts evaluating the Healthy Cities initiative conducted across 57 unique settings that met the inclusion criteria. We present our findings according to regional distribution, evaluation methods, and focus of evaluations. The distribution of evaluations across regions varied significantly, with certain locations serving as focal points for research activity, such as the WHO European Healthy Cities Network. The widespread use of surveys and interviews underscores the emphasis on capturing both quantitative and qualitative dimensions in assessing the Healthy Cities initiative. Although the strong representation of themes such as implementation approach, community participation, and policy development reflects a clear focus on implementation, engagement, and policy outcomes, the underrepresentation of themes such as intersectoral collaboration and capacity building points to areas requiring greater attention.
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.