Community interventions for physical activity : the role of a new Cochrane systematic review

Introduction: Systematic reviews are essential in summarising the results of a range of research studies on a specific topic into a single report. They serve as a key source of evidence-based information to support and develop policy and practice for healthy communities. This presentation will examine a new review of community-wide strategies to increase population levels of physical activity and compare it to an earlier Community Guide Review (CGR) of Community-wide campaigns to increase physical activity which recommended community wide interventions. Methods: We registered a Cochrane Systematic Review (CSR) title, published a protocol and recently completed the review of Community-wide interventions to increase physical activity. We compared the definitions, design and findings of the CSR to the CGR. Results: The two reviews differed remarkably in their conclusions with the CGR recommending “strong evidence exists that community-wide campaigns are effective in increasing levels of physical activity”, and the new CSR stating “The body of evidence in this review does not support the hypothesis that multi-component community wide interventions effectively increase population levels of physical activity”. We observed that both reviews examined multi-component interventions as a “combined package”. Possible explanations for the different conclusions may be due to the definition of community (CSR defined community as “comprising those persons residing in a geographically defined community, such as a village, town, or city”, excluding interventions which were whole of state or country, and CGR as “a group of individuals who share one or more characteristics. The CSR utilised a logic model at various stages of the review process and explicitly defined a combination of strategies encompassed within the intervention. The CSR included 25 and CGR 10 studies, respectively. Six of the 10 studies that were included in CGR were excluded from the CSR due to issues relating to study design, intervention definition or duration. The two reviews also differ in function as the CSR seeks to summarise global evidence and included 7 studies in low-income countries, where as the CGR contained only studies deemed relevant to the USA context. Discussion: Differences in the findings between older and newer reviews can be due to a variety of factors. For example, in updating a review the definition of an intervention can be changed. Further, differences may also be due to improvements in the standards and methodologies for systematic reviews as well as the inclusion of newer studies. These factors need to be understood whenever differences between newer and older reviews are considered.

Methodological challenges in conducting a systematic review of community wide interventions to increase physical activity

Introduction: Evaluating the effectiveness of interventions designed to increase the physical activity in communities is often a difficult and complex task, requiring considerable expertise and investment, and often constrained by methodological limitations. These limitations, in turn, create additional challenges when these studies are used in systematic reviews as they hinder the confidence, precision and interpretation of results. The objective of this paper is to summarise the methodological challenges posed in conducting a systematic review of community-wide physical activity interventions to help inform those conducting future primary research and systematic reviews. Methods: We conducted a Cochrane systematic review of community-wide interventions to increase physical activity. We assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. We will investigate these in greater detail, particularly in relation to the potential impact on measures of effect, confidence in results, generalizability of results and general interpretation. Results: The systematic review was conducted and has been published in the Cochrane Library. A logic model was helpful in defining and interpreting the studies. Many studies of unsuitable study design were excluded; however several important methodological limitations of the primary studies evaluating community-wide physical activity interventions emerged. These included: - the failure to use validated tools to measure physical activity; - issues associated with pre and post test designs; - inadequate sampling of populations; - poor control groups; and - intervention and measurement protocols of inadequate duration. Although it is challenging to undertake rigorous evaluations of complex interventions, these issues result in significant uncertainty over the effectiveness of these interventions, and the possible factors required for a community-wide intervention to be successful. In particular, the combination of several of these limitations (e.g. un-validated tools, inadequate sampling, and short duration) is that studies may lack the sensitivity to detect any meaningful change. Multiple publications of findings for the same study also made interpretation difficult; however, interventions with parallel qualitative publications were helpful. Discussion: Evaluating community wide interventions to increase physical activity in a rigorous way is incredibly challenging. These findings reflect these challenges but have important ramifications for researchers conducting primary studies to determine the efficacy of such interventions, as well as for researchers conducting systematic reviews. This new review shows that the inadequacies of design and evaluation are continuing. It is hoped that the adoption of such suggestions may aid in the development of systematic reviews, but more importantly, in enabling translation of such findings into policy and practice.

In the Wake of Cyclone Yasi : Facilitation and Evaluation in Community Narrative-Driven Projects

On 3 February 2011, Cyclone Yasi struck the coast of North Queensland, causing widespread damage. The cyclone destroyed the small coastal town of Cardwell, about 165 kilometres north of Townsville, Queensland. This chapter serves as a case study of a collaborative outreach project mobilised in response to this disaster in North Queensland. A public history research team, consisting of practitioners from the Queensland University of Technology’s Creative Industries Faculty, with the support of the Oral History Association of Australia, Queensland branch, partnered with the Cardwell and District Historical Society to support the society to collect community narratives in the wake of Cyclone Yasi.