Assessing Open Science practices in physical activity behaviour change intervention evaluations

Abstract

This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.Copyright 2022 The Authors. Objectives Concerns on the lack of reproducibility and transparency in science have led to a range of research practice reforms, broadly referred to as ‘Open Science’. The extent that physical activity interventions are embedding Open Science practices is currently unknown. In this study, we randomly sampled 100 reports of recent physical activity behaviour change interventions to estimate the prevalence of Open Science practices. Methods One hundred reports of randomised controlled trial physical activity behaviour change interventions published between 2018-2021 were identified. Open Science practices were coded in identified reports, including: study pre-registration, protocol sharing, data-, materials- and analysis scripts-sharing, replication of a previous study, open access publication, funding sources and conflict of interest statements. Coding was performed by two independent researchers, with inter-rater reliability calculated using Krippendorff’s alpha. Results 78% of the 100 reports provided details of study pre-registration and 41% provided evidence of a published protocol. 4% provided accessible open data, 8% provided open materials and 1% provided open analysis scripts. 73% of reports were published as open access and no studies were described as replication attempts. 93% of reports declared their sources of funding and 88% provided conflicts of interest statements. A Krippendorff’s alpha of 0.73 was obtained across all coding. Conclusion Open data, materials, analysis and replication attempts are currently rare in physical activity behaviour change intervention reports, whereas funding source and conflict of interest declarations are common. Future physical activity research should increase the reproducibility of their methods and results by incorporating more Open Science practices.Competing interests and funding statement: The authors declare they have no competing interests