↓ Skip to main content

A theoretical analysis of the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of school-based physical activity policies in Canada: a mixed methods scoping review

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A theoretical analysis of the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of school-based physical activity policies in Canada: a mixed methods scoping review
Published in
Implementation Science, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13012-017-0570-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katie A. Weatherson, Heather L. Gainforth, Mary E. Jung

Abstract

Given the potential impact school-based daily physical activity (DPA) policies can have on the health outcomes of Canadian children, it is surprising that such little research has examined the implementation and student-level effectiveness of these policies, and that even less have used theory to understand the barriers and facilitators affecting uptake of this policy by teachers. This review descriptively summarizes the implementation status, approaches used to implement DPA, and the effectiveness of DPA at increasing the physical activity of children at school. In addition, the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) was used to explore the barriers and facilitators to DPA implementation. A scoping review of English articles using ERIC, CINAHL, and Google Scholar (2005 to 2016) was conducted. Only studies that evaluated the implementation and/or student-level effectiveness of DPA policies in Canadian elementary schools were included. Only articles that examined DPA implementation barriers and facilitators by teachers, principals, and/or administration were eligible for the TDF analysis. Data on study characteristics and major findings regarding implementation status, implementation approach used, and impact on student's physical activity were extracted and were summarized descriptively, including study quality indicators. Two coders extracted and categorized implementation barriers and facilitators into TDF domains. The search resulted in 66 articles being retrieved and 38 being excluded for not meeting the eligibility criteria, leaving 15 eligible for review (10 of which examined barriers and facilitators to implementation from DPA deliverers' perspective). Eleven of 15 studies examined the Ontario DPA policy, and 2 studies were from both Alberta and British Columbia. Thirteen studies examined implementation, and only two examined effectiveness. DPA implementation status, approaches to delivery, and effectiveness on student's PA levels are inconsistent across the three provinces. A total of 203 barriers/facilitators were extracted across the ten implementation studies, most of which related to the environmental context and resources (ECR; n = 86; 37.4%), beliefs about consequences (n = 41; 17.8%), and social influences (n = 36; 15.7%) TDF domains. With the limited research examining the DPA policy in Canada, the current status and approaches used to implement DPA and the student-level effectiveness is not well understood; however, this review revealed that DPA deliverers often report many barriers to DPA implementation. Most importantly, in conducting a TDF-based analysis of the barriers/facilitators affecting implementation, this review provides a theoretical basis by which researchers and policy-makers can design interventions to better target these problems in the future. A protocol for this review was not registered.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 118 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 20%
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 5%
Other 23 19%
Unknown 28 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 12%
Sports and Recreations 14 12%
Social Sciences 13 11%
Psychology 12 10%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 36 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 March 2017.
All research outputs
#3,138,579
of 11,311,336 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#809
of 1,199 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,702
of 262,946 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#36
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,311,336 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,199 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,946 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.