Rural physical activity interventions in the United States: a systematic review and RE-AIM evaluation

Abstract Background Previous reviews of rural physical activity interventions were focused on intervention effectiveness and had reported overall mixed findings. The purpose of this systematic review was to apply the Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to eva...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Nishat Bhuiyan, Pritika Singh, Samantha M. Harden, Scherezade K. Mama
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2019-12-01
Series:International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-019-0903-5
_version_ 1819295543275290624
author Nishat Bhuiyan
Pritika Singh
Samantha M. Harden
Scherezade K. Mama
author_facet Nishat Bhuiyan
Pritika Singh
Samantha M. Harden
Scherezade K. Mama
author_sort Nishat Bhuiyan
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Background Previous reviews of rural physical activity interventions were focused on intervention effectiveness and had reported overall mixed findings. The purpose of this systematic review was to apply the Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to evaluate the extent to which rural physical activity interventions in the U.S. have reported on dimensions of internal and external validity and to offer suggestions for future physical activity interventions for rural U.S. populations. Methods Pubmed, PsychINFO, CINAHL, PAIS, and Web of Science were searched through February 2019 to identify physical activity intervention studies conducted in rural regions in the U.S. with adult populations. Titles, abstracts, and full texts of articles were reviewed against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extraction from included articles included a summary of study details, rural classification system used, and the presence or absence of a total 61 RE-AIM indicators, including reach (n = 13), efficacy/effectiveness (n = 10), adoption (n = 21), implementation (n = 9), and maintenance (n = 8). Results A total of 40 full-text articles representing 29 unique studies were included. Classifications of rurality included self-statements by authors (n = 19, 65.5%), population/census-based definitions (n = 3, 10.3%), Rural Urban Continuum Codes (n = 3, 10.3%), Rural Urban Commuting Area codes (n = 2, 6.9%), the 2014 Alabama Rural Health Association classification system (n = 1, 3.4%) and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget classification system (n = 1, 3.4%). Individual studies reported between 14.8 to 52.5% of total RE-AIM indicators. Studies reported 15.4 to 84.6% indicators for reach; 20.0 to 70.0% indicators for efficacy/effectiveness; 4.8 to 47.6% indicators for adoption; 11.1 to 88.9% indicators for implementation; and 0 to 25.0% indicators for maintenance. Conclusions We found an overall poor reporting of components related to external validity, which hinders the generalizability of intervention findings, and a lack of consistency in the definition of rurality. Future research should focus on balancing factors of internal and external validity, and should aim to develop a greater understanding of how rurality influences health and behavior to provide contextual knowledge needed to advance the translation of physical activity interventions into practice in rural communities and reduce rural health disparities. Trial registration The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42019116308.
first_indexed 2024-12-24T04:43:53Z
format Article
id doaj.art-6f7ff521ab33429fb14aaa9618fb7aba
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1479-5868
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-24T04:43:53Z
publishDate 2019-12-01
publisher BMC
record_format Article
series International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
spelling doaj.art-6f7ff521ab33429fb14aaa9618fb7aba2022-12-21T17:14:44ZengBMCInternational Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity1479-58682019-12-0116111110.1186/s12966-019-0903-5Rural physical activity interventions in the United States: a systematic review and RE-AIM evaluationNishat Bhuiyan0Pritika Singh1Samantha M. Harden2Scherezade K. Mama3Department of Kinesiology, The Pennsylvania State UniversityDepartment of Kinesiology, The Pennsylvania State UniversityDepartment of Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise, Virginia TechDepartment of Kinesiology, The Pennsylvania State UniversityAbstract Background Previous reviews of rural physical activity interventions were focused on intervention effectiveness and had reported overall mixed findings. The purpose of this systematic review was to apply the Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to evaluate the extent to which rural physical activity interventions in the U.S. have reported on dimensions of internal and external validity and to offer suggestions for future physical activity interventions for rural U.S. populations. Methods Pubmed, PsychINFO, CINAHL, PAIS, and Web of Science were searched through February 2019 to identify physical activity intervention studies conducted in rural regions in the U.S. with adult populations. Titles, abstracts, and full texts of articles were reviewed against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extraction from included articles included a summary of study details, rural classification system used, and the presence or absence of a total 61 RE-AIM indicators, including reach (n = 13), efficacy/effectiveness (n = 10), adoption (n = 21), implementation (n = 9), and maintenance (n = 8). Results A total of 40 full-text articles representing 29 unique studies were included. Classifications of rurality included self-statements by authors (n = 19, 65.5%), population/census-based definitions (n = 3, 10.3%), Rural Urban Continuum Codes (n = 3, 10.3%), Rural Urban Commuting Area codes (n = 2, 6.9%), the 2014 Alabama Rural Health Association classification system (n = 1, 3.4%) and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget classification system (n = 1, 3.4%). Individual studies reported between 14.8 to 52.5% of total RE-AIM indicators. Studies reported 15.4 to 84.6% indicators for reach; 20.0 to 70.0% indicators for efficacy/effectiveness; 4.8 to 47.6% indicators for adoption; 11.1 to 88.9% indicators for implementation; and 0 to 25.0% indicators for maintenance. Conclusions We found an overall poor reporting of components related to external validity, which hinders the generalizability of intervention findings, and a lack of consistency in the definition of rurality. Future research should focus on balancing factors of internal and external validity, and should aim to develop a greater understanding of how rurality influences health and behavior to provide contextual knowledge needed to advance the translation of physical activity interventions into practice in rural communities and reduce rural health disparities. Trial registration The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42019116308.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-019-0903-5Physical activityExternal validityInternal validityRural health
spellingShingle Nishat Bhuiyan
Pritika Singh
Samantha M. Harden
Scherezade K. Mama
Rural physical activity interventions in the United States: a systematic review and RE-AIM evaluation
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
Physical activity
External validity
Internal validity
Rural health
title Rural physical activity interventions in the United States: a systematic review and RE-AIM evaluation
title_full Rural physical activity interventions in the United States: a systematic review and RE-AIM evaluation
title_fullStr Rural physical activity interventions in the United States: a systematic review and RE-AIM evaluation
title_full_unstemmed Rural physical activity interventions in the United States: a systematic review and RE-AIM evaluation
title_short Rural physical activity interventions in the United States: a systematic review and RE-AIM evaluation
title_sort rural physical activity interventions in the united states a systematic review and re aim evaluation
topic Physical activity
External validity
Internal validity
Rural health
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-019-0903-5
work_keys_str_mv AT nishatbhuiyan ruralphysicalactivityinterventionsintheunitedstatesasystematicreviewandreaimevaluation
AT pritikasingh ruralphysicalactivityinterventionsintheunitedstatesasystematicreviewandreaimevaluation
AT samanthamharden ruralphysicalactivityinterventionsintheunitedstatesasystematicreviewandreaimevaluation
AT scherezadekmama ruralphysicalactivityinterventionsintheunitedstatesasystematicreviewandreaimevaluation