A RE-AIM evaluation of physical activity interventions in youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of physical activity (PA) and its successful promotion in youth could have a significant impact on population health; however, 93% of Canadian youth are not meeting the recommended national PA guidelines for healthy growth and development (Colley et al., 2011). An identified limitation of existing reviews of the relevant research has been the prominent focus on reporting internal validity without systematically addressing issues related to the translatability of the research into health promotion practice (i.e., external validity) (Kriemler et al., 2011). This review used the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance) framework to determine the extent to which intervention studies promoting PA in school-aged youth (aged 12 to 17 years) report on factors that inform generalizability across settings and populations. A systematic search for controlled interventions conducted within the last ten years identified 51 studies that met the selection criteria. Studies were coded independently by two members of the research team using the RE-AIM data extraction tool (Akers, Estabrooks, & Davy, 2010). Most of the studies (52.9%) were cluster randomized controlled trials. The average reporting across RE-AIM indicators varied by dimension (reach=73.1%; efficacy=77.1%; adoption=35.5%; implementation=54.2%; maintenance=12.4%). The majority of the studies focused solely on the efficacy of the intervention at the individual-level. Conversely, very few studies reported on factors that affect external validity, such as representativeness of participants and settings, cost of implementation, and program sustainability (i.e., maintenance). Due to this lack of information, it is difficult to determine whether or not reportedly successful interventions are feasible and sustainable in an uncontrolled, real-world setting. This review adds data to support recommendations (Van Sluijs, McMinn, & Griffin, 2007) that interventions promoting PA in youth should include assessment of adoption and implementation issues, include long-term follow-up measures on an individual- and organization-level, and carry out cost effectiveness analyses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.144 | 0.195 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".