Policy Evaluation Network (PEN): Protocol for systematic literature review examining the evidence for impact of policies across seven different policy domains

Kevin Volf,Policy Evaluation Network (Pen) Consortium ,Joanna Zukowska,Liam Kelly,Jeroen Lakerveld,Peter Gelius,Blathin Casey,Catherine Woods,Enrique García Bengoechea,Anna Gobis,Sarah Forberger,Sven Messing

doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.13089.2

Abstract

Introduction: 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. Methods: 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. Conclusions: 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. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020156630 (10/07/2020).

Highlights

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
(3) Publicly available English-language resources and documents of major national and international stakeholders will be searched to identify existing reviews and position papers discussing the evidence of what works in terms of direct and indirect policies for increasing physical activity (PA), e.g., the World Health Organisation (WHO) European database on Nutrition, Obesity and Physical Activity (NOPA), Global Action Plan on Physical Activity (GAPPA), the European Physical Activity Strategy (EPAS) (WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2015) and the European Physical Activity Guidelines (EPAG) (European Commission, 2008)
The aim of each Policy Evaluation Network (PEN) review is to evaluate the status of the evidence base for the impact of policy on PA outcomes across the different policy domains identified in the “seven best investments”

Summary

Introduction

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. The aim of each PEN review is to evaluate the status of the evidence base for the impact of policy on PA outcomes across the different policy domains identified in the “seven best investments” This protocol paper outlines the methodology for seven complementary systematic literature reviews as part of PEN. Each review is designed to determine the impact of policy, either directly or indirectly, on physical activity outcomes across the different policy domains identified in the “Seven Best Investments” ( ISPAH, 2011) These policy domains are whole-of-school programmes, transport policies and systems, urban design regulations and infrastructure, primary health care, public education, communitywide programmes involving multiple settings and sport systems and programmes that promote ‘sport for all’. While this was explained in the search details, to make this clearer we have edited the mandatory and preferred labels to “general” (applies to all mooted reviews) and “specific”

Methods

Findings

Conclusion