UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR) and Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
School of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020 Aug 24;17(1):107. doi: 10.1186/s12966-020-01013-7.
Evaluation of physical activity interventions is vital to inform, and justify, evidence-based policy and practice to support population-wide changes in physical activity. Several evaluation frameworks and guidance documents have been developed to facilitate the evaluation and reporting of evaluation studies in public health. However, there is a lack of evidence about whether frameworks are being used to guide evaluation. There continues to be claims of poor and inconsistent reporting in evaluation studies. The aim of this review was to assess the use of evaluation frameworks and the quality of reporting of how they were applied within evaluation studies of physical activity interventions.
We developed a checklist of indicators to enable a critical appraisal of the use and reporting of different evaluation frameworks in evaluation studies. We conducted a systematic search and review of evaluation studies published between 2015 and the date of the search to appraise the use and reporting of evaluation frameworks. A narrative synthesis is provided.
The review identified 292 evaluation studies of physical activity interventions, only 69 (23%) of these mentioned using an evaluation framework, and only 16 different frameworks were referred to. There was variation in the quality of reporting of framework use. 51 (74%) studies were identified as being explicitly based on the stated framework, however only 26 (38%) provided detailed descriptions consistently across all the checklist indicators. Details of adaptations and limitations in how frameworks were applied were less frequently reported. The review also highlighted variability in the reporting of intervention components. More consistent and precise reporting of framework and intervention components is needed.
Evaluation frameworks can facilitate a more systematic evaluation report and we argue their limited use suggests missed opportunities to apply frameworks to guide evaluation and reporting in evaluation studies. Variability in the quality of reporting of framework use limits the comparability and transferability of evidence. Where a framework has been used, the checklist of indicators can be employed to facilitate the reporting of an evaluation study and to review the quality of an evaluation report.
评估体育活动干预措施对于提供信息和证明基于证据的政策和实践以支持体育活动在人群中的广泛改变至关重要。已经制定了几个评估框架和指导文件，以促进公共卫生领域评估研究的评估和报告。然而，关于框架是否被用于指导评估，证据不足。评估研究中仍然存在报告不佳和不一致的情况。本研究的目的是评估体育活动干预措施评估研究中使用评估框架的情况以及报告框架应用情况的质量。
我们制定了一个指标清单，以批判性地评估评估研究中使用和报告不同评估框架的情况。我们对 2015 年至搜索日期之间发表的评估研究进行了系统搜索和综述，以评估评估框架的使用和报告情况。提供了叙述性综合。
该综述确定了 292 项体育活动干预措施的评估研究，只有 69 项（23%）提到使用评估框架，仅提到了 16 个不同的框架。框架使用情况的报告质量存在差异。51 项（74%）研究被确定为明确基于所陈述的框架，但只有 26 项（38%）在所有清单指标上提供了一致的详细描述。框架应用中的适应性和局限性的详细信息报告较少。该综述还强调了干预措施组件报告的可变性。需要更一致和准确地报告框架和干预措施组件。
评估框架可以促进更系统的评估报告，我们认为其有限的使用表明错过了应用框架来指导评估和报告评估研究的机会。框架使用情况报告质量的变异性限制了证据的可比性和可转移性。在使用框架的情况下，可以使用清单指标来促进评估研究的报告，并审查评估报告的质量。
