↓ Skip to main content

Equity effects of children’s physical activity interventions: a systematic scoping review

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
71 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
181 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
Equity effects of children’s physical activity interventions: a systematic scoping review
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12966-017-0586-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca E. Love, Jean Adams, Esther M. F. van Sluijs

Abstract

Differential effects of physical activity (PA) interventions across population sub-groups may contribute to inequalities in health. This systematic scoping review explored the state of the evidence on equity effects in response to interventions targeting children's PA promotion. The aims were to assess and summarise the availability of evidence on differential intervention effects of children's PA interventions across gender, body mass index, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, place of residence and religion. Using a pre-piloted search strategy, six electronic databases were searched for controlled intervention trials, aiming to increase PA in children (6-18 years of age), that used objective forms of measurement. Screening and data extraction were conducted in duplicate. Reporting of analyses of differential effects were summarized for each equity characteristic and logistic regression analyses run to investigate intervention characteristics associated with the reporting of equity analyses. The literature search identified 13,052 publications and 7963 unique records. Following a duplicate screening process 125 publications representing 113 unique intervention trials were included. Although the majority of trials collected equity characteristics at baseline, few reported differential effects analyses across the equity factors of interest. All 113 included interventions reported gender at baseline with 46% of non-gender targeted interventions reporting differential effect analyses by gender. Respective figures were considerably smaller for body mass index, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, place of residence and religion. There was an increased likelihood of studying differential effects in school based interventions (OR: 2.9 [1.2-7.2]) in comparison to interventions in other settings, larger studies (per increase in 100 participants; 1.2 [1.0 - 1.4]); and where a main intervention effect on objectively measured PA was reported (3.0 [1.3-6.8]). Despite regularly collecting relevant information at baseline, most controlled trials of PA interventions in children do not report analyses of differences in intervention effect across outlined equity characteristics. Consequently, there is a scarcity of evidence concerning the equity effects of these interventions, particularly beyond gender, and a lack of understanding of subgroups that may benefit from, or be disadvantaged by, current intervention efforts. Further evidence synthesis and primary research is needed to effectively understand the impact of PA interventions on existing behavioural inequalities within population subgroups of children. PROSPERO (PROSPERO 2016: CRD42016034020 ).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 71 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 181 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 17%
Student > Master 18 10%
Student > Bachelor 18 10%
Researcher 13 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 32 18%
Unknown 59 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 18%
Sports and Recreations 26 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 10%
Social Sciences 14 8%
Psychology 8 4%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 70 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. 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 02 September 2020.
All research outputs
#871,743
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#275
of 2,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,047
of 335,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#11
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,142 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
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 335,249 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.