ArticleJournal of exercise science and fitness2026
Evaluation of the Government indicator methodology in the Global Matrix on physical activity for children and adolescents.
Article in Journal of exercise science and fitness, 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
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/objectives: The Government indicator evaluates national policies and strategies for child and adolescent physical activity, supporting country reporting and international comparisons within the Global Matrix initiative. To grade this indicator, countries/jurisdictions apply either the original method or, in recent editions, an alternative approach. The alternative approach was proposed by the Welsh team, who derived six criteria from the World Health Organization's Health-Enhancing Physical Activity Policy Audit Tool v2 and developed an accompanying scoring rubric. This study aimed to evaluate the Welsh approach in comparison with the original method to guide recommendations for future applications. Methods: The study employed a mixed-methods design, including: 1) inductive content analysis of feedback collected via survey from 17 researchers and policy professionals from various countries, and 2) descriptive and Wilcoxon signed-rank analysis of Government indicator grades from Global Matrices 3.0 and 4.0 in 6 countries that transitioned to the Welsh approach and 28 countries/jurisdictions that retained the original method. Results: User feedback on the Welsh approach was predominantly positive, noting its structure, transparency, and comprehensiveness as strengths, and indicating greater utility and suitability than the original method. Concerns included limited consideration of policy implementation and feasibility aspects. No statistically significant group-level temporal grade differences were found for both methods. Conclusion: The Welsh approach adds structure and transparency to the Government indicator assessment. Further refinements to the Welsh approach may improve comparability and policy relevance, while both the Welsh and original methods remain acceptable for interim use within the Global Matrix, with potential applicability beyond it.
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.