Three types of scientific evidence to inform physi

Authors: Alfred Rütten Diana Schow João Breda Gauden Galea Sonja Kahlmeier JeanMichel Oppert Hidde van der Ploeg Willem van Mechelen

Publish Date: 2016/04/26

Volume: 61, Issue: 5, Pages: 553-563

PDF Link

Abstract

This paper presents a typology of available evidence to inform physical activity policy It aims to refine the distinction between three types of evidence relating to physical activity and to compare these types for the purpose of clarifying potential research gapsA scoping review explored the extent range and nature of three types of physical activityrelated evidence available in reviews I health outcomes/risk factors II interventions and III policymaking A sixstep qualitative iterative process with expert consultation guided data coding and analysis in EPPI Reviewer 4856 Type I reviews 350 Type II reviews and 40 Type III reviews were identified Type I reviews heavily focused on obesity issues 18  Reviews of a systematic nature were more prominent in the Type II 50  Type III reviews tended to conflate research about policy intervention effectiveness and research about policymaking processes The majority of reviews came from the United States United Kingdom Australia and CanadaAlthough evidence gaps exist regarding evidence Types I and II the most prominent gap regards Type III ie research pertaining to physical activity policymaking The findings presented herein will be used to inform physical activity policy development and future researchThe need for a scoping review on physical activity evidence types is twofold First the World Health Organization WHO Regional Office for Europe and its Member States are implementing the first European Strategy on Physical Activity to support the reversal of trends in rates of certain noncommunicable diseases and obesity World Health Organization 2014 They seek to ground the strategy on current scientific evidence Second in a WHO working group convened to inform the new strategy experts agreed that the rapid increase of published research on the subject of physical activity necessitates a fresh look at the body of available evidence Of special interest is the distinction between three types of evidence Type I evidence pertains to physical activity and health ie studies that link physical activity to risk factors or health outcomes Type II evidence pertains to physical activity interventions ie studies that link interventions to physical activity behavior Type III evidence pertains to physical activity policy ie studies that link policymaking to physical activity cf Brownson et al 2009 MartinDiener et al 2014Some assumptions were made regarding evidence types before starting the scoping review Policymakers and researchers involved agreed that Type I and Type II evidence might be much more developed than Type III evidence For example the landmark review of the Physical Activity Advisory Committee United States Department of Health and Human Services 2008 provided an extensive overview of Type I evidence Likewise Type II evidence has been broadly covered in previous publications eg Heath et al 2012 and World Health Organization 2009 In contrast very few attempts have been made to specifically establish the evidencebase for physical activity policymaking Some approaches have developed good practice criteria based on literature reviews Bull et al 2014 Others completed content analyses of nationallevel policy documents Daugbjerg et al 2009 Vestmark et al 2011 or focused on the use of evidence in physical activity policies Aro et al 2015To our knowledge no review systematically integrates and compares the literature available across the three different evidence types A comparison of this kind would increase understanding of the extent range and nature of the available evidence and the evidence gaps in physical activity research It could also be used to ground policies on all types of current scientific evidence Moreover knowledge derived from the comparison might be useful to guide future research support efforts of pivotal organizations Martin et al 2006 and encourage innovative funding schemes

Keywords: