One small step for man, one giant leap for men's health: A meta-analysis of behaviour change interventions to increase men's physical activity

Objective To determine the effects of behaviour change interventions on men’s physical activity (postintervention), sustained change in physical activity behaviour (≥12 months postintervention) and to identify variations in effects due to potential moderating variables (eg, theoretical underpinning, gender-tailored, contact frequency). Design Systematic review with meta-analysis. Pooled effect size (Cohen’s d) was calculated assuming a random-effects model. Homogeneity and subsequent exploratory moderator analyses were assessed using Q, T2 and I2. Data sources Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, SportDiscus and Web of Science to April 2019. Eligibility criteria for selected studies Randomised control trials of behaviour change interventions in men (≥18 years) where physical activity was an outcome and data were from men-only studies or disaggregated by sex. Results Twenty-six articles described 24 eligible studies. The overall mean intervention effect on men’s physical activity was 0.35 (SE=0.05; 95% CI 0.26 to 0.45;

Systematic overviews of partnership principles and strategies identified from health research about spinal cord injury and related health conditions:A scoping review

Study design: Scoping review.Objective: To identify and provide systematic overviews of partnership principles and strategies identified from health research about spinal cord injury (SCI) and related health conditions.Methods: Four health electronic databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO) were searched from inception to March 2019. We included articles that described, reflected, and/or evaluated one or more collaborative research activities in health research about SCI, stroke, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, amputation, cerebral palsy, spina bifida, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, acquired brain injury, or wheelchair-users. Partnership principles (i.e. norms or values) and strategies (i.e. observable actions) were extracted and analyzed using directed qualitative content analysis.Results: We included 39 articles about SCI (n = 13), stroke (n = 15), multiple sclerosis (n = 5), amputation (n = 2), cerebral palsy (n = 2), Parkinson's disease (n = 1), and wheelchair users (n = 1). We extracted 110 principles and synthesized them into 13 overarching principles. Principles related to building and maintaining relationships between researchers and research users were most frequently reported. We identified 32 strategies that could be applied at various phases of the research process and 26 strategies that were specific to a research phase (planning, conduct, or dissemination).Conclusion: We provided systematic overviews of principles and strategies for research partnerships. These could be used by researchers and research users who want to work in partnership to plan, conduct and/or disseminate their SCI research. The findings informed the development of the new SCI Integrated Knowledge Translation Guiding Principles (www.iktprinciples.com) and will support the implementation of these Principles within the SCI research system.</p

How are health research partnerships assessed? A systematic review of outcomes, impacts, terminology and the use of theories, models and frameworks

BACKGROUND: Accurate, consistent assessment of outcomes and impacts is challenging in the health research partnerships domain. Increased focus on tool quality, including conceptual, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics, could improve the quantification, measurement and reporting partnership outcomes and impacts. This cascading review was undertaken as part of a coordinated, multicentre effort to identify, synthesize and assess a vast body of health research partnership literature. OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess the outcomes and impacts of health research partnerships, relevant terminology and the type/use of theories, models and frameworks (TMF) arising from studies using partnership assessment tools with known conceptual, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics. METHODS: Four electronic databases were searched (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus and PsycINFO) from inception to 2 June 2021. We retained studies containing partnership evaluation tools with (1) conceptual foundations (reference to TMF), (2) empirical, quantitative psychometric evidence (evidence of validity and reliability, at minimum) and (3) one or more pragmatic characteristics. Outcomes, impacts, terminology, definitions and TMF type/use were abstracted verbatim from eligible studies using a hybrid (independent abstraction–validation) approach and synthesized using summary statistics (quantitative), inductive thematic analysis and deductive categories (qualitative). Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD). RESULTS: Application of inclusion criteria yielded 37 eligible studies. Study quality scores were high (mean 80%, standard deviation 0.11%) but revealed needed improvements (i.e. methodological, reporting, user involvement in research design). Only 14 (38%) studies reported 48 partnership outcomes and 55 impacts; most were positive effects (43, 90% and 47, 89%, respectively). Most outcomes were positive personal, functional, structural and contextual effects; most impacts were personal, functional and contextual in nature. Most terms described outcomes (39, 89%), and 30 of 44 outcomes/impacts terms were unique, but few were explicitly defined (9, 20%). Terms were complex and mixed on one or more dimensions (e.g. type, temporality, stage, perspective). Most studies made explicit use of study-related TMF (34, 92%). There were 138 unique TMF sources, and these informed tool construct type/choice and hypothesis testing in almost all cases (36, 97%). CONCLUSION: This study synthesized partnership outcomes and impacts, deconstructed term complexities and evolved our understanding of TMF use in tool development, testing and refinement studies. Renewed attention to basic concepts is necessary to advance partnership measurement and research innovation in the field. Systematic review protocol registration: PROSPERO protocol registration: CRD42021137932 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=137932. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-022-00938-8

Deposits

Links to deposited data sets with commentary

Background

Description of the origins of this project and relevant readings for new partners