Cassandra Lane1,2,3,4, Sam McCrabb5,6,7, Nicole Nathan5,6,7,8, Patti-Jean Naylor9, Adrian Bauman5,10, Andrew Milat10, Melanie Lum5,6,7,8, Rachel Sutherland5,6,7,8, Judith Byaruhanga5,6,7,8, Luke Wolfenden5,6,7,8. 1. School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. Cassandra.lane1@health.nsw.gov.au. 2. Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Area Health Service, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. Cassandra.lane1@health.nsw.gov.au. 3. Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. Cassandra.lane1@health.nsw.gov.au. 4. Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia. Cassandra.lane1@health.nsw.gov.au. 5. School of Medicine and Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. 6. Hunter New England Population Health, Hunter New England Area Health Service, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. 7. Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. 8. Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia. 9. School of Exercise Science, Physical and Health Education, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada. 10. School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The 'scale-up' of effective physical activity interventions is required if they are to yield improvements in population health. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the effectiveness of community-based physical activity interventions that have been scaled-up. We also sought to explore differences in the effect size of these interventions compared with prior evaluations of their efficacy in more controlled contexts, and describe adaptations that were made to interventions as part of the scale-up process. METHODS: We performed a search of empirical research using six electronic databases, hand searched reference lists and contacted field experts. An intervention was considered 'scaled-up' if it had been intentionally delivered on a larger scale (to a greater number of participants, new populations, and/or by means of different delivery systems) than a preceding randomised control trial ('pre-scale') in which a significant intervention effect (p < 0.05) was reported on any measure of physical activity. Effect size differences between pre-scale and scaled up interventions were quantified ([the effect size reported in the scaled-up study / the effect size reported in the pre-scale-up efficacy trial] × 100) to explore any scale-up 'penalties' in intervention effects. RESULTS: We identified 10 eligible studies. Six scaled-up interventions appeared to achieve significant improvement on at least one measure of physical activity. Six studies included measures of physical activity that were common between pre-scale and scaled-up trials enabling the calculation of an effect size difference (and potential scale-up penalty). Differences in effect size ranged from 132 to 25% (median = 58.8%), suggesting that most scaled-up interventions typically achieve less than 60% of their pre-scale effect size. A variety of adaptations were made for scale-up - the most common being mode of delivery. CONCLUSION: The majority of interventions remained effective when delivered at-scale however their effects were markedly lower than reported in pre-scale trials. Adaptations of interventions were common and may have impacted on the effectiveness of interventions delivered at scale. These outcomes provide valuable insight for researchers and public health practitioners interested in the design and scale-up of physical activity interventions, and contribute to the growing evidence base for delivering health promotion interventions at-scale. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020144842 .
BACKGROUND: The 'scale-up' of effective physical activity interventions is required if they are to yield improvements in population health. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the effectiveness of community-based physical activity interventions that have been scaled-up. We also sought to explore differences in the effect size of these interventions compared with prior evaluations of their efficacy in more controlled contexts, and describe adaptations that were made to interventions as part of the scale-up process. METHODS: We performed a search of empirical research using six electronic databases, hand searched reference lists and contacted field experts. An intervention was considered 'scaled-up' if it had been intentionally delivered on a larger scale (to a greater number of participants, new populations, and/or by means of different delivery systems) than a preceding randomised control trial ('pre-scale') in which a significant intervention effect (p < 0.05) was reported on any measure of physical activity. Effect size differences between pre-scale and scaled up interventions were quantified ([the effect size reported in the scaled-up study / the effect size reported in the pre-scale-up efficacy trial] × 100) to explore any scale-up 'penalties' in intervention effects. RESULTS: We identified 10 eligible studies. Six scaled-up interventions appeared to achieve significant improvement on at least one measure of physical activity. Six studies included measures of physical activity that were common between pre-scale and scaled-up trials enabling the calculation of an effect size difference (and potential scale-up penalty). Differences in effect size ranged from 132 to 25% (median = 58.8%), suggesting that most scaled-up interventions typically achieve less than 60% of their pre-scale effect size. A variety of adaptations were made for scale-up - the most common being mode of delivery. CONCLUSION: The majority of interventions remained effective when delivered at-scale however their effects were markedly lower than reported in pre-scale trials. Adaptations of interventions were common and may have impacted on the effectiveness of interventions delivered at scale. These outcomes provide valuable insight for researchers and public health practitioners interested in the design and scale-up of physical activity interventions, and contribute to the growing evidence base for delivering health promotion interventions at-scale. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020144842 .
Authors: Jordan J Smith; Philip J Morgan; Ronald C Plotnikoff; Kerry A Dally; Jo Salmon; Anthony D Okely; Tara L Finn; David R Lubans Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Kristen E Cohen; Philip J Morgan; Ronald C Plotnikoff; Robin Callister; David R Lubans Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Rodrigo S Reis; Deborah Salvo; David Ogilvie; Estelle V Lambert; Shifalika Goenka; Ross C Brownson Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-07-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Luke Wolfenden; Sam McCrabb; Courtney Barnes; Kate M O'Brien; Kwok W Ng; Nicole K Nathan; Rachel Sutherland; Rebecca K Hodder; Flora Tzelepis; Erin Nolan; Christopher M Williams; Sze Lin Yoong Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-08-29
Authors: Michael W Beets; Lauren von Klinggraeff; Sarah Burkart; Alexis Jones; John P A Ioannidis; R Glenn Weaver; Anthony D Okely; David Lubans; Esther van Sluijs; Russell Jago; Gabrielle Turner-McGrievy; James Thrasher; Xiaoming Li Journal: Obes Rev Date: 2021-11-14 Impact factor: 10.867
Authors: Rachel L Sutherland; Jacklyn K Jackson; Cassandra Lane; Sam McCrabb; Nicole K Nathan; Sze Lin Yoong; Melanie Lum; Judith Byaruhanga; Matthew McLaughlin; Alison Brown; Andrew J Milat; Adrian E Bauman; Luke Wolfenden Journal: Nutr Rev Date: 2022-03-10 Impact factor: 7.110
Authors: Maike Till; Karim Abu-Omar; Annika Herbert-Maul; Tobias Fleuren; Anne Kerstin Reimers; Heiko Ziemainz Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2022-04-14
Authors: Toby J Kable; Angus A Leahy; Jordan J Smith; Narelle Eather; Nora Shields; Michael Noetel; Chris Lonsdale; Charles H Hillman; Penny Reeves; Christopher Oldmeadow; Sarah G Kennedy; James Boyer; Leisl Stimpson; Pierre Comis; Laura Roche; David R Lubans Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-08-10 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Lindsay Nettlefold; Patti-Jean Naylor; Heather M Macdonald; Heather A McKay Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 3.390