Policy Evaluation Network (PEN): Protocol for systematic literature reviews examining the evidence for impact of policies on physical activity across seven different policy domains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Introduction:</ns3:bold> Over 40 million deaths annually are due to noncommunicable diseases, 15 million of these are premature deaths and physical inactivity contributes an estimated 9% to this figure. Global responses have included the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Global Action Plan on Physical Activity (GAPPA). Both point to policy action on physical activity (PA) to address change, yet the impact of policy on PA outcomes is unknown. The protocol described outlines the methodology for systematic literature reviews that will be undertaken by the Policy Evaluation Network (PEN) to address this knowledge gap. </ns3:p> <ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Methods:</ns3:bold> The seven best investments for promotion of population PA identified in the Toronto Charter highlighted seven policy domains (schools, transport, urban design, primary health care systems, public education, community-wide programmes and sport) which will form the basis of these PEN reviews. Seven individual scientific literature searches across six electronic databases will be conducted. Each will use the key concepts of policy, PA, evaluation and a distinct concept for each of the seven policy domains. This will be supplemented with a search of the reference list of included articles. Methodological quality will be assessed and overall effectiveness for each included study will be described according to pre-determined criteria. </ns3:p> <ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Conclusions:</ns3:bold> Each review will provide policy makers with a list of policy statements and corresponding actions which the evidence has determined impact on PA directly or indirectly. By collating the evidence, and demonstrating the depth of the science base which informs these policy recommendations, each review will provide guidance to policymakers to use evidence-based or evidence-informed policies to achieve the 15% relative reduction in physical inactivity as defined by GAPPA. </ns3:p> <ns3:p/> <ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Registration:</ns3:bold> PROSPERO <ns3:ext-link xmlns:ns4="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="uri" ns4:href="https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=156630">CRD42020156630</ns3:ext-link> (10/07/2020). </ns3:p>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".