Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

A scoping review of systems approaches for increasing physical activity in populations

Health Research Policy and Systems volume 20, Article number: 104 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

The past decade has increasingly seen systems approaches as a featured theme in public health studies and policy documents. This trend is evident in the area of physical activity, which is a significant global health risk factor that is addressed in WHO’s Global Action Plan on Physical Activity. We undertook a comprehensive scoping review to characterize the application of systems approaches to physical activity, to develop a typology of the objectives, themes and methods of research papers that purported to apply systems thinking to this issue.

Methods

We searched electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and PsycINFO) for studies published during the period 2010–2021 that explicitly applied systems approaches or methods to investigate and/or address population physical activity. A framework using systems-based methodological approaches was adapted to classify physical activity studies according to their predominant approach, covering basic descriptive, complex analytical and advanced forms of practice. We selected case studies from retained studies to depict the current “state of the art”.

Results

We included 155 articles in our narrative account. Literature reporting the application of systems approaches to physical activity is skewed towards basic methods and frameworks, with most attention devoted to conceptual framing and predictive modelling. There are few well-described examples of physical activity interventions which have been planned, implemented and evaluated using a systems perspective. There is some evidence of “retrofitted” complex system framing to describe programmes and interventions which were not designed as such.

Discussion

We propose a classification of systems-based approaches to physical activity promotion together with an explanation of the strategies encompassed. The classification is designed to stimulate debate amongst policy-makers, practitioners and researchers to inform the further implementation and evaluation of systems approaches to physical activity.

Conclusion

The use of systems approaches within the field of physical activity is at an early stage of development, with a preponderance of descriptive approaches and a dearth of more complex analyses. We need to see movement towards a more sophisticated research agenda spanning the development, implementation and evaluation of systems-level interventions.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Interest in the use of systems approaches in public health has grown rapidly, with up to 90% of published examples emerging in the last 10 years [1, 2]. Recently, systems approaches have been recommended for increasing population levels of physical activity (PA), in recognition of the principle that the complex issue of physical inactivity cannot be addressed by simple, single solutions [3]. Historically, health promotion policy and programmes to address physical inactivity have come to rely on social ecological models to guide strategies at multiple levels, involving partners from diverse sectors of government and society [1, 4]. While systems approaches share some of the elements of social ecological models, they advance these concepts by their attention to the interrelationships within and across levels of influence, as well as the wide range of interacting outcomes from efforts to intervene in the system. These outcomes may be intended or unintended, positive or negative, amplified or diminished depending on how the system responds. Systems-based interventions to address PA may use established public health planning frameworks and strategies [4,5,6] but can also be informed by methodologies grounded in systems thinking or systems science; examples include system mapping, network analysis and system modelling [5, 6].

Despite the widely recognized potential for systems approaches to address complex public health issues like physical inactivity, reviews indicate that studies tend towards description rather than intervention and display a number of limitations [1, 2, 5, 7]. A range of barriers to the use of systems approaches in public health have been reported, including (i) lack of understanding about what they are, (ii) uncertainty about how to apply them in practice, (iii) perceptions that they are too difficult to apply or require new approaches and complex skills, (iv) scepticism about whether they add value sufficient to justify the required effort and resources, and (v) structural factors such as existing government processes and funding mechanisms which tend to reinforce the status quo [4, 5]. Without clear, practice-oriented guidance on how to implement and evaluate systems thinking and approaches, practitioners will continue to take the known options of interventions that address a limited array of risk factors believed to have a direct and linear influence on public health problems [8].

If the potential for systems approaches to PA is to be realized, there is a need for greater awareness, knowledge and skills among policy-makers and practitioners about how to apply these approaches as well as an understanding of their added value [5]. The peer-reviewed literature is a natural starting point for learning more about how systems approaches are currently understood and applied to PA. It is also a body of literature that can be systematically identified and accessed using current search practices, compared with grey literature which is more disparate. However, it is acknowledged that governmental and nongovernmental reports and other outputs may also offer important contributions towards systems thinking or practice [5]. Previous reviews have attended to public health in general terms, but an examination focused on PA has not been undertaken [2, 5, 6]. We attempt to address this gap by conducting a scoping review, which is widely accepted to be a suitable and rigorous approach for providing a descriptive overview of the state of research activity in a field, particularly in an area that is emerging, poorly known and dispersed across various methodologies and disciplines (as is the case for systems approaches for PA) [9,10,11]. Our objectives were firstly to describe and classify the major themes and strategic applications in the peer-reviewed literature that reported using systems approaches in PA, and secondly to provide case studies that illustrate systems approaches and the methods used.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review, guided by methodological frameworks developed by Arksey and O’Malley [9] and Levac and colleagues [10], and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) [12] (Additional file 2).

Search criteria

We searched electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and PsycINFO) for studies published from 2010 to 2020 that reported using a systems approach or methods for enhancing population PA. Searches were run for all databases on 16 December 2020. Search terms were developed by consulting the search strategies in previous reviews of systems approaches for public health, and developing a search string that incorporated the explicit systems terms commonly used in previous reviews [2, 13, 14] ("systems approach*” OR “systems thinking" OR "whole-of-system*" OR "whole of system*" OR “whole system* approach*” OR "systems map*" OR “system* dynamic*” OR “systems science” OR “systems-based approach*” OR “complex systems”) combined with PA terms ("physical activity" OR "sport" OR “sports[MeSH Terms]” OR “walking” OR “cycling” OR “active travel” OR “active transport*” OR “exercise[MeSH Terms] OR “bicycl*” OR “biking” OR “active commut*” OR “public transport*”). We also considered the included studies of relevant reviews found using these search terms. Additional studies from 1 January 2021 until 31 December 2021 were identified from Web of Science notifications for newly published studies meeting the search criteria.

Screening

The criteria for inclusion and exclusion are set out in Table 1. Studies could address PA as a component of a broader public health initiative such as obesity prevention, provided they addressed PA as a discrete component of the intervention or analysis.

Table 1 Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Full size table

We adopted a conservative approach, and papers were retained for full-text screening if it was unclear from the title and abstract whether inclusion criteria were met. A subset of 200 papers were screened independently by two authors (TN and AB), with an inter-rater agreement of 94.5%. Conflicts were resolved by discussion and agreement between TN and AB. A further 83 papers were screened jointly to achieve consensus on decision criteria, and then each paper was screened by one reviewer. The full-text versions of the papers were screened by one reviewer (TN), with any uncertainties resolved by discussion with other authors (WB and AB). Papers that related to the same study (e.g. the WHO STOPS trial [15,16,17]) or related to the same overarching initiative (e.g. the Healthy Kids, Healthy Communities [HKHC] projects funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation) [18,19,20,21,22] were included and classified separately according to the stage of systems approach and method used.

Data charting

For each paper, one reviewer (TN) documented the author/year, title and a description of how the study applied a systems approach for PA.

Classification of articles

We adapted an existing framework of systems methods for public health evaluations [6] to classify PA studies according to the predominant methodological approach they used (system mapping, network analysis, system modelling, system framing, protocol development, generic methods, methods development and literature synthesis) and the strategic intent of their systems approach (theorizing, prediction [simulation], intervention development, process evaluation, impact evaluation).

Additional categories were created to capture articles that did not correspond to the existing categories in this framework (i.e. intervention development, protocol development, methods development, literature synthesis) (Table 2). Although we have proposed “stages” of a systems approach, this was mainly to provide a classification framework for the different applications of systems thinking and methods to PA, rather than to denote a progression or hierarchy of approaches. We classified studies as “unclear systems approaches” if, based on the information provided, we could not determine the systems perspective or method being used.

Table 2 Typology of systems methods used in physical activity research across stages of systems approaches
Full size table

Three authors (AB, WB, TN) classified each paper according to the adapted framework based on the dominant category that it corresponded to for the stage of systems approach, and the dominant category for the systems methods used. In the few instances where papers could be classified under multiple categories, the authors conferred and reached consensus on the appropriate classification. Following classification, a numerical summary analysis was conducted along with a narrative overview of the types of studies found for each stage of systems approach and the methodological approaches used within each stage.

Fisher’s exact test was used to examine the significance of any differences in the distribution of publications for each category of systems approach and method used, across two time periods, 2010–2015 and 2016–2021. We purposively selected case studies from the included studies that clearly described their use of systems methods for a particular stage of systems approach for PA.

Results

Our review included 155 publications for the following narrative account from 2480 identified through the literature search. Figure 1 presents a flow diagram of publication identification, screening, eligibility assessment and inclusion.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow diagram for inclusion of studies. *The number of full-text articles included in the narrative account was 155 rather than 156, as one of the articles was an authors’ reply to a response provided to an earlier publication

Full size image

In Additional file 1: Tables S1–S5 show the information extracted from each study, organized by stage of systems approach, and Additional file 1: Table S6 identifies those studies that were classified as unclear systems approaches.

Table 3 summarizes the number of publications found for each stage of systems approach and method. The predominant category was Prediction publications (n = 61), which mainly used system modelling approaches, followed by Theorizing publications (n = 61), which mainly used system framing approaches (n = 22). There were 11 Intervention development publications, mainly protocol papers (n = 5), and 11 Process evaluation publications, mainly using system framing (n = 7). The least common category was Impact evaluation publications (n = 8), and these mainly used generic methods (n = 7).

Table 3 Distribution of the number of publications across stages of systems approach and type of methodological approach
Full size table

Figures 2 and 3 compare the distribution of publications across different stages of systems approaches and method used from 2010–2015 to 2016–2021. They show an increase in the number of publications across all stages of systems approaches, with Theorizing overtaking Prediction as the most prevalent category in the most recent 5 years. They also show an increase in the use of each methodological approach (except for network analysis), although system modelling was still the most frequently used method. Despite the increase in some categories, the proportion of publications in each category was reasonably stable and not significantly different across the periods.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Distribution across different stages of systems approach by number of publications from 2010–2015 to 2016–2021

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Distribution across different methodological approaches by number of publications from 2010–2015 to 2016–2021

Full size image

Further details about the articles found for each stage of systems approach and methods applied are provided below.

Theorizing

Sixty-one articles were classified under the Theorizing stage of a systems approach, primarily using system framing (n = 22) and system mapping approaches (n = 16).

The aims of theorizing include identifying and comparing stakeholder understanding of a complex system [6] (Table 2), commonly to identify the drivers of PA and inactivity and relationships between them. System mapping was a widely used method for doing this. PA was the focus of the system map in some studies [23,24,25,26,27,28,29], while in others it was one of multiple components (e.g. along with healthy eating [20, 22, 30], or other risk factors for obesity [31] and diseases [32]). In some cases, the system map was developed entirely through group-based approaches [20, 23, 32]; in others, a preliminary map was provided for others to modify and build upon [26, 29]. It was commonly reported that the system map was used to identify opportunities to intervene and to help develop policies and interventions [20, 23, 26, 27, 30]. System framing was also used to support formative work to better understand existing systems, as a way of informing future systems approaches and interventions [33,34,35].

Social network analysis was used in five studies to identify and compare stakeholder understanding of their relationships with other individuals or organizations in a particular system. Understanding the types and functions of networks, and the role that key actors play, is considered useful for understanding where and how to intervene in a system [36, 37]. It has the potential to help identify influential leaders who may be champions for the intervention; leverage existing network capacity for information, policy or change diffusion [38]; and identify where existing networks may need to be formed or strengthened to improve the implementation of interventions [38, 39].

There were a few examples of developing new methods to support understanding about a particular system relevant to PA. For example, a new coding system was developed by Hoehner and colleagues [19] to aggregate and aid analysis of a large number of behaviour-over-time graphs that had been generated during group-based modelling sessions held in diverse communities involved in the HKHC initiative. Other studies that were categorized as Methods development aimed to guide the future design, monitoring and evaluation of systems interventions [40, 41].

Another aim of theorizing is to explore the role, application or implications of using systems approaches or particular methods in a particular context (Table 2). These studies were mainly classified as using system framing or literature syntheses. In relation to system framing, systems-based theories or frameworks (such as the intervention-level framework) were drawn on or developed to analyse existing strategies and policy and identify areas where they could be strengthened for obesity prevention [42, 43]; provide support for arguments about the need for a systems approach for PA [44] and diseases such as type 2 diabetes [45]; show how urban planning for walking and cycling contributes to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals [46]; and explain how active lifestyles could be coproduced using a whole system approach [47]. Most of the included literature syntheses for the Theorizing category reviewed applications of system dynamics modelling (SDM) or agent-based modelling (ABM) in public health, chronic disease and obesity [48,49,50,51,52]. Two studies were focused on PA in terms of assessing the use of simulation modelling to inform decision-making about built environment influences on PA [53], and examining the use of systems-based simulation studies to evaluate the health-related consequences of active transport [54].

Prediction (simulation)

Sixty-one articles were classified under the Prediction stage of a systems approach, mostly system modelling studies (n = 54).

The aims of prediction include hypothesizing and simulating how an intervention might impact on and interact in a complex system [6] (Table 2), which was typically achieved in the included studies using SDM. Many SDM studies were conducted in relation to active transport (n = 10) [55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64]. Several tested the effects of different policies or interventions on outcomes such as cycling, walking, public transport and active transport to school [57, 59, 61, 64], in some cases together with other outcomes such as injury, fuel costs, air pollution and carbon emissions [57, 59]. In other studies, the SDM focused on the effects of different policies and interventions on individual transport mode choice [62], with the main consideration being reducing carbon emissions, improving mobility efficiency and sustainability [58, 62, 63] or reducing motor vehicle deaths and injury [60].

A number of studies used SDM to simulate the effect of PA behaviours or policy interventions on obesity outcomes (n = 7) [65,66,67,68,69,70,71]. Several (n = 3) used the Prevention Impacts Simulation Model (PRISM) (an SDM) to project the reduction in deaths and costs from PA promotion and other obesity prevention efforts [72,73,74].

Another aim of prediction is to hypothesize and simulate how agents within a complex system react and interact in response to an intervention [6], using ABM (n = 26) [75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100]. Many of these studies were focused on active transport and/or built environment interventions and simulating their potential interaction with agent characteristics (e.g. their walking ability, attitudes to different transport modes, vehicle ownership, social networks) to model their impact on outcomes such as walking, cycling, public transport and mode share [76, 83,84,85, 90, 92,93,94,95,96,97,98, 100].

A selection of studies used ABM to explore the potential impact of interventions on PA in children [75, 81, 95, 99]. These included interventions relating to a combination of outdoor play, school physical education and active travel [75]; using dynamic furniture in the school environment [81]; and the operation of after-school programmes [99]. Some studies had an equity focus, for example to explore the impact of intervention scenarios on income inequalities in sports participation [80]; and to simulate the effects of PA infrastructure on reducing racial disparities in BMI [88]. There were limited examples of methods development (n = 3) [101,102,103]. These included developing a participatory approach to codesign an ABM about PA with adolescent youth [101] and a new methodology for representing walking behaviours and benchmarking agent movement between models and against real-world data [103].

Intervention development

This category concerned the development of interventions for real-world implementation within a complex system. Our review found 11 articles in this category [15, 18, 21, 104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111], many of which were protocols (n = 5) [15, 108,109,110,111], although one of these protocols was subsequently implemented [15] and two others were written part-way through programme implementation [109, 110]. Most of the protocols focused on childhood obesity prevention [15, 108,109,110] and were set in towns or cities in Australia [15, 108] or England [109, 111]. Several referred to participatory system mapping or group model-building as one of the methods to inform intervention development [15, 18, 21, 108, 110, 111].

Four studies were categorized as using system framing to develop interventions for PA [104,105,106,107]. One of these studies used a systems lens to provide insights into how the Government of South Australia used a Health in All Policies approach to develop high-level policy commitments for PA (and other factors) [106]. Another study used a mixed-methods design to evaluate and refine a community-based, systems approach to childhood obesity prevention, called Live 5–2-1–0 [104].

Process evaluation

Process evaluation involves understanding how an implemented intervention interacts with and influences the PA system in the real world [6] (Table 2). Most of the 11 studies in this category were classified as using system framing (n = 7) [8, 16, 112,113,114,115,116], with the remaining studies using system mapping (n = 1) [117] generic methods (n = 2) [118, 119], or proposing methods for process evaluation in a protocol (n = 1) [120].

Several studies used system framing to provide a unifying approach to analysing data from multiple sources, so that the factors and processes contributing to the implementation of an intervention could be better understood [112,113,114,115]. One study applied Foster-Fishman’s theoretical framework to describe actions taken to drive systems change in two communities to improve children’s health [16]. The components of the framework used were focused on system norms, operations and regulations. Another study used a multilevel perspective conceptual framework as a guide for mixed-methods analysis to elucidate the process of embedding a public bike-sharing scheme into the physical, social and institutional fabric of a city [115].

An example of using generic methods for process evaluation was the use of the validated Community Readiness Tool to assess whether a whole-of-community, systems-level obesity prevention initiative (known as YCHANGe) in a rural community in Australia improved the level of community readiness to change over time [119].

Impact evaluation

This category was defined as quantifying the impact or outcomes of an implemented intervention on key system parameters in the real world [6] (thus excluding any modelling studies that forecasted impact in hypothetical scenarios) (Table 2). There were few studies that conducted impact evaluation of a systems approach (n = 8) [17, 121,122,123,124,125,126,127], and most used generic methods (n = 7) [17, 122,123,124,125,126,127]. The impact evaluations mostly involved analysis of changes in PA behaviours resulting from systems approaches for obesity prevention [17, 123, 124, 126], although one study examined the impact on the health promotion activity and orientation of sports clubs [125].

Unclear systems approaches

There were three examples of unclear systems approaches [128,129,130], primarily because the study, in our view, did not clearly describe how they used systems thinking or systems approaches in the development or delivery or their intervention. For example, the Moving Healthcare Professionals programme to embed prevention and PA into clinical practice did not clearly describe how systems thinking or systems approaches were used in the education delivery strategies [128]. The First 1000 Days programme for pregnant women to prevent obesity and related risk factors was similarly classified because it was focused primarily on individual behaviour change strategies and did not describe how systems thinking or approaches were applied [130].

Discussion

The role of systems thinking and accompanying tools such as system mapping in helping to frame responses to complex public health challenges has grown in the past decade, with particular prominence in obesity prevention [27]. In 2018, the release of WHO’s Global Action Plan on Physical Activity (GAPPA) signalled that an important change in thinking had occurred, stipulating that “effective national action to reverse current trends and reduce disparities in PA requires a ‘systems-based’ approach” [3]. Our scoping review shows how systems approaches have been applied to PA prior to and since this call to action.

All the retained publications in this review reported incorporating systems approaches. However, it appears that few engaged robustly with systems concepts, and in particular with the unique properties of systems approaches that distinguish them from the social ecological models that have long guided PA research and interventions. Systems approaches are characterized by recognition of feedback and adaptation, dynamic interacting elements, nonlinearity, self-organization and emergence [4, 5, 7, 121]. The body of PA literature that sought to apply systems approaches emphasized theorizing—understanding the system (mapping) and prediction (modelling). There was an apparent lack of a cross-sectoral perspective (other than in the studies using community-wide approaches), a strong focus on built environment determinants, and little or no attention to the analysis of the subsystems of policy-making and some of the sectors that potentially have a significant role to play in efforts to promote PA (e.g. primary care, sport) [131]. It is hard not to conclude that some authors are “dedicated followers of fashion”, since they appear to have “retrofitted” complex systems methodological framing to describe programmes and interventions which were not necessarily designed as such. This is particularly the case for those papers categorized as unclear systems approaches.

The extensive use of system mapping to theorize PA determinants and potential intervention points in our review demonstrates how this is being adopted and perceived as valuable, as a method for generating shared understanding and priorities for PA promotion among diverse stakeholders who may otherwise be dispersed and disconnected in the system. The more limited application of social network analysis in theorizing studies suggests it may be underutilized as a tool for exploring how organizational interactions, through information sharing, coordination and cooperation, could be improved through analysis of the programme delivery environment using a systems lens. There is also potentially an opportunity for making greater use of social network analysis to help develop and target strategies to strengthen governance arrangements, a key systems-level intervention.

The limited application of systems methods for evaluation of PA interventions is consistent with the findings of the review led by McGill [6] concerning public health policy and programmes more broadly. That review did, however, offer examples of the potential applications of systems methods at different stages of evaluation. For instance, system framing can be used in process evaluation to gain insights from stakeholders about how an intervention interacted with different elements of the wider system [6]. A complex systems perspective can also be applied to conducting process evaluation with qualitative methods [132]. Network analysis can be used in impact evaluation as a tool for evaluating the impacts of interventions on social relationships in schools, workplaces and other settings [6]. Other methods such as participatory action research and qualitative comparative analysis may also be applied to evaluation from a system lens, but are yet to be well described. The use of systems approaches for evaluation appears to be an area for future methodological development [6].

Numerous papers in this review focused on modelling and simulations; however, it was usually not reported whether or how the resulting information informed decision-making and novel policy actions, although this may not always be clear given the complexities of policy development to address PA [35, 133]. The few applications of systems methods in PA intervention delivery and evaluation also showed that there remains a need to demonstrate whether this approach can lead to better intervention selection, engagement of strategic intersectoral partners in implementation, and generation of new forms of knowledge to improve policy and programme impacts to address this health priority. Other reviews of the use of systems approaches and methods in public health have similarly found limited practical applications and translation of these into impact and change [2, 13, 121, 134]. When WHO included “active systems” as one of four main strategies in GAPPA, this was further described as taking action on “governance, leadership, multisectoral partnerships, workforce capabilities, advocacy, information systems and financing mechanisms across all relevant sectors” [3]. These are whole-of-system level interventions, to which legislation and regulation [135] and system surveillance [136, 137] could arguably be added.

A strength of this review was its use of inclusive search methods and a peer-reviewed framework to identify and classify applications of systems approaches and methods for enhancing population PA, which has not been examined in previous reviews of systems approaches. However, it is possible that our typology does not reflect all the ways in which systems approaches may be adopted and developed over time. Our review was also limited to the peer-reviewed articles. It is likely that relevant examples of systems approaches or use of systems methods for population PA exist outside the formal academic literature. For example, the emergence of guidance on systems thinking, such as the suite of documents developed for civil servants by the United Kingdom Government Office for Science [138] and Getting Australia Active III which was developed primarily for Australian policy-makers [139], may lead to increased adoption of systems approaches in government settings. In future, a more comprehensive synthesis would need to rely on collaborative networks and additional search and extraction methods to enable such evidence to be synthesized [5]. More generally, while a scoping review was appropriate to meet the objectives of this study, it is subject to limitations that are typical of this approach; for example, we did not appraise the methodological quality of the studies included in this review [9].

Conclusion and implications for research and practice

The use of system approaches to increase PA in populations is at a relatively early stage of development, with a preponderance of descriptive approaches and a dearth of more advanced forms of practice and analysis. The field needs to move towards more sophisticated research agenda encompassing the development, implementation and evaluation of system-informed approaches, and demonstrating their effectiveness and added value. This will require greater application of mixed-methods evaluation approaches. The design and evaluation of systems approaches for PA should also extend beyond setting-level interventions and address systems-level enablers that arguably include governance and leadership, legislation and regulation, multisectoral partnerships, workforce capabilities, advocacy, information systems, system surveillance and financing mechanisms. Discussion, formulation and evaluation of these strategic interventions remain under-investigated and should be a priority for future practice and research.

Availability of data and materials

The authors can confirm that all relevant data are included in the article and/or its additional information files.

Abbreviations

ABM:

Agent-based modelling

GAPPA:

Global Action Plan on Physical Activity

HKHC:

Healthy Kids, Healthy Communities

PA:

Physical activity

SDM:

System dynamics modelling

References

  1. Clifford Astbury C, McGill E, Egan M, Penney TL. Systems thinking and complexity science methods and the policy process in non-communicable disease prevention: a systematic scoping review protocol. BMJ Open. 2021;11(9): e049878. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049878.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Carey G, Malbon E, Carey N, Joyce A, Crammond B, Carey A. Systems science and systems thinking for public health: a systematic review of the field. BMJ Open. 2015;5(12): e009002-e. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. World Health Organization. Global action plan on physical activity 2018–2030: more active people for a healthier world. 2018. https://www.who.int/news-room/initiatives/gappa#:~:text=WHO%20has%20developed%20a%20new,physical%20activity%20at%20all%20levels Accessed 6 July 2022.

  4. Haynes A, Garvey K, Davidson S, Milat A. What can policy-makers get out of systems thinking? Policy partners’ experiences of a systems-focused research collaboration in preventive health. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2020;9(2):65–76. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2019.86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. UK Academy of Medical Sciences (AMS), Canadian Academy of Health Sciences (CAHS). Systems-based approaches in public health: where next? 2021. https://acmedsci.ac.uk/more/news/complexsystems Accessed 6 July 2022.

  6. McGill E, Er V, Penney T, Egan M, White M, Meier P, et al. Evaluation of public health interventions from a complex systems perspective: a research methods review. Soc Sci Med. 2021;272: 113697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113697.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pescud M, Rychetnik L, Allender S, Irving MJ, Finegood DT, Riley T, et al. From understanding to impactful action: systems thinking for systems change in chronic disease prevention research. Systems. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems9030061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sautkina E, Goodwin D, Jones A, Ogilvie D, Petticrew M, White M, et al. Lost in translation? Theory, policy and practice in systems-based environmental approaches to obesity prevention in the Healthy Towns programme in England. Health Place. 2014;29:60–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.05.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2119–26. https://doi.org/10.11124/jbies-20-00167.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Atkinson J-A, Page A, Prodan A, McDonnell G, Osgood N. Systems modelling tools to support policy and planning. Lancet. 2018;391(10126):1158–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30302-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Zukowski N, Davidson S, Yates MJ. Systems approaches to population health in Canada: how have they been applied, and what are the insights and future implications for practice? Can J Public Health. 2019;110(6):741–51. https://doi.org/10.17269/s41997-019-00230-3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Allender S, Millar L, Hovmand P, Bell C, Moodie M, Carter R, et al. Whole of systems trial of prevention strategies for childhood obesity: WHO stops childhood obesity. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13111143.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Allender S, Brown AD, Bolton KA, Fraser P, Lowe J, Hovmand P. Translating systems thinking into practice for community action on childhood obesity. Obes Rev. 2019;20(S2):179–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12865.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Allender S, Orellana L, Crooks N, Bolton KA, Fraser P, Brown AD, et al. Four-year behavioral, health-related quality of life, and BMI outcomes from a cluster randomized whole of systems trial of prevention strategies for childhood obesity. Obesity. 2021;29(6):1022–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.23130.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Brennan LK, Sabounchi NS, Kemner AL, Hovmand P. Systems thinking in 49 communities related to healthy eating, active living, and childhood obesity. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2015;21(Suppl 3):S55-69. https://doi.org/10.1097/phh.0000000000000248.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hoehner CM, Sabounchi NS, Brennan LK, Hovmand P, Kemner A. Behavior-over-time graphs: assessing perceived trends in healthy eating and active living environments and behaviors across 49 communities. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2015;21:S45–54. https://doi.org/10.1097/phh.0000000000000211.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Keane P, Ortega A, Linville J. healthy kids, healthy Cuba: findings from a group model building process in the rural Southwest. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2015;21:S70–3. https://doi.org/10.1097/phh.0000000000000250.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Moreland JW. Improving park space access for the healthy kids, healthy communities partnership in Denver. Colorado J Public Health Manag Pract. 2015;21(Suppl 3):S84–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/phh.0000000000000234.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Thomas IM, Reilly SR. Group model building: a framework for organizing healthy community program and policy initiatives in Columbia, Missouri. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2015;21:S79–83. https://doi.org/10.1097/phh.0000000000000209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Guariguata L, Unwin N, Garcia L, Woodcock J, Samuels TA, Guell C. Systems science for developing policy to improve physical activity, the Caribbean. Bull World Health Organ. 2021;99(10):722–9. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.20.285297.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Ma J, Hogan MJ, Eyre ELJ, Lander N, Barnett LM, Duncan MJ. Using collective intelligence to identify barriers to implementing and sustaining effective Fundamental Movement Skill interventions: a rationale and application example. J Sports Sci. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2020.1841395.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ma J, Hogan MJ, Eyre ELJ, Lander N, Barnett LM, Duncan MJ. Enhancing the implementation and sustainability of fundamental movement skill interventions in the UK and Ireland: lessons from collective intelligence engagement with stakeholders. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021;18(1):144. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-021-01214-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Murphy JJ, Mansergh F, Murphy MH, Murphy N, Cullen B, O’Brien S, et al. “Getting Ireland Active”—application of a systems approach to increase physical activity in Ireland using the GAPPA framework. J Phys Act Health. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2020-0864.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Rutter H, Cavill N, Bauman A, Bull F. Systems approaches to global and national physical activity plans. Bull World Health Organ. 2019;97(2):162–5. https://doi.org/10.2471/blt.18.220533.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Rutter H, Cavill N, Bauman A, Bull F. Systems approaches to support action on physical activity. Bull World Health Organ. 2020;98(3):226–7. https://doi.org/10.2471/blt.20.250936.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Cavill N, Richardson D, Faghy M, Bussell C, Rutter H. Using system mapping to help plan and implement city-wide action to promote physical activity. J Public Health Res. 2020;9(3):1759. https://doi.org/10.4081/jphr.2020.1759.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Holdsworth M, Nicolaou M, Langøien LJ, Osei-Kwasi HA, Chastin SFM, Stok FM, et al. Developing a systems-based framework of the factors influencing dietary and physical activity behaviours in ethnic minority populations living in Europe—a DEDIPAC study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14(1):154. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-017-0608-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. McGlashan J, Hayward J, Brown A, Owen B, Millar L, Johnstone M, et al. Comparing complex perspectives on obesity drivers: action-driven communities and evidence-oriented experts. Obes Sci Pract. 2018;4(6):575–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/osp4.306.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Uleman JF, Melis RJF, Quax R, van der Zee EA, Thijssen D, Dresler M, et al. Mapping the multicausality of Alzheimer’s disease through group model building. Geroscience. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11357-020-00228-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Anrooij KV-V, Hilgenkamp TIM, Leusink GL, van der Cruijsen A, Jansen H, Naaldenberg J, et al. Improving environmental capacities for health promotion in support settings for people with intellectual disabilities: inclusive design of the DIHASID Tool. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17030794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Jess M, Keay J, Carse N. Primary physical education: a complex learning journey for children and teachers. Sport Educ Soc. 2016;21(7):1018–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2014.979142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Rigby BP, van der Graaf P, Azevedo LB, Hayes L, Gardner B, Dodd-Reynolds CJ. Challenges, opportunities and solutions for local physical activity stakeholders: an implementation case study from a cross-sectoral physical activity network in Northeast England. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1760. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09847-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Jancey J, Leavy JE, Pollard C, Riley T, Szybiak M, Milligan M, et al. Exploring network structure and the role of key stakeholders to understand the obesity prevention system in an Australian metropolitan health service: study protocol. BMJ Open. 2019;9(5): e027948. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027948.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Marks J, Barnett LM, Foulkes C, Hawe P, Allender S. Using social network analysis to identify key child care center staff for obesity prevention interventions: a pilot study. J Obes. 2013;2013: 919287. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/919287.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Marks J, Sanigorski A, Owen B, McGlashan J, Millar L, Nichols M, et al. Networks for prevention in 19 communities at the start of a large-scale community-based obesity prevention initiative. Transl Behav Med. 2018;8(4):575–84. https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/iby026.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Jancey J, Vidler AC, Leavy JE, Chamberlain D, Riley T, Pollard CM, et al. Understanding prevention networks in a local government area: insights from a social network analysis among western Australian nutrition, physical activity, and obesity prevention programs. Health Promot Pract. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248399211050661.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Morris MA, Wilkins E, Timmins KA, Bryant M, Birkin M, Griffiths C. Can big data solve a big problem? Reporting the obesity data landscape in line with the foresight obesity system map. Int J Obes. 2018;42(12):1963–76. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41366-018-0184-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Sawyer A, den Hertog K, Verhoeff AP, Busch V, Stronks K. Developing the logic framework underpinning a whole-systems approach to childhood overweight and obesity prevention: Amsterdam Healthy Weight Approach. Obes Sci Pract. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/osp4.505.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Beets MW, Webster C, Saunders R, Huberty JL. Translating policies into practice: a framework to prevent childhood obesity in afterschool programs. Health Promot Pract. 2013;14(2):228–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839912446320.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Johnston LM, Matteson CL, Finegood DT. Systems science and obesity policy: a novel framework for analyzing and rethinking population-level planning. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(7):1270–8. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2014.301884.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Kohl HW 3rd, Craig CL, Lambert EV, Inoue S, Alkandari JR, Leetongin G, et al. The pandemic of physical inactivity: global action for public health. Lancet. 2012;380(9838):294–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(12)60898-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. van Ommen B, Wopereis S, van Empelen P, van Keulen HM, Otten W, Kasteleyn M, et al. From diabetes care to diabetes cure—the integration of systems biology, ehealth, and behavioral change. Front Endocrinol. 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2017.00381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Macmillan A, Smith M, Witten K, Woodward A, Hosking J, Wild K, et al. Suburb-level changes for active transport to meet the SDGs: causal theory and a New Zealand case study. Sci Total Environ. 2020;714: 136678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.136678.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Ruetten A, Frahsa A, Abel T, Bergmann M, de Leeuw E, Hunter D, et al. Co-producing active lifestyles as whole-system-approach: theory, intervention and knowledge-to-action implications. Health Promot Int. 2019;34(1):47–59. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dax053.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Morshed AB, Kasman M, Heuberger B, Hammond RA, Hovmand PS. A systematic review of system dynamics and agent-based obesity models: evaluating obesity as part of the global syndemic. Obes Rev. 2019;20(Suppl 2):161–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12877.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Nianogo RA, Arah OA. Agent-based modeling of noncommunicable diseases: a systematic review. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(3):e20-31. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2014.302426.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Tracy M, Cerda M, Keyes KM. Agent-based modeling in public health: current applications and future directions. Annu Rev Public Health. 2018;39:77–94. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-014317.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Xue H, Slivka L, Igusa T, Huang TT, Wang Y. Applications of systems modelling in obesity research. Obes Rev. 2018;19(9):1293–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12695.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Yang Y. Using agent-based modeling to study multiple risk factors and multiple health outcomes at multiple levels. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2017;1408(1):7–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13558.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Frerichs L, Smith NR, Lich KH, BenDor TK, Evenson KR. A scoping review of simulation modeling in built environment and physical activity research: Current status, gaps, and future directions for improving translation. Health Place. 2019;57:122–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.04.001.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Stankov I, Garcia LMT, Mascolli MA, Montes F, Meisel JD, Gouveia N, et al. A systematic review of empirical and simulation studies evaluating the health impact of transportation interventions. Environ Res. 2020;186: 109519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109519.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Bajracharya A. Public transportation and private car: a system dynamics approach in understanding the mode choice. Int J Syst Dyn Appl. 2016;5(2):1–18. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijsda.2016040101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Cai J, Liang Y. System dynamics modeling for a public-private partnership program to promote bicycle-metro integration based on evolutionary game. Transp Res Rec. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981211012425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Ercan T, Onat NC, Tatari O, Mathias J-D. Public transportation adoption requires a paradigm shift in urban development structure. J Clean Prod. 2017;142:1789–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.11.109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Liu H, Liu T, Liu L, Guo HC, Yu YJ, Wang Z. Integrated simulation and optimization approach for studying urban transportation-environment systems in Beijing. J Environ Inf. 2010;15(2):99–110. https://doi.org/10.3808/jei.201000170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Macmillan A, Connor J, Witten K, Kearns R, Rees D, Woodward A. The societal costs and benefits of commuter bicycling: simulating the effects of specific policies using system dynamics modeling. Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122(4):335–44. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1307250.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. McClure RJ, Adriazola-Steil C, Mulvihill C, Fitzharris M, Salmon P, Bonnington CP, et al. Simulating the dynamic effect of land use and transport policies on the health of populations. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(Suppl 2):S223–9. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2014.302303.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Papageorgiou G, Demetriou G. Investigating learning and diffusion strategies for sustainable mobility. Smart Sustain Built Environ. 2019;9(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/sasbe-02-2019-0020.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Tonini NB, Chaves GDD, Cunto FJC, Ribeiro GM. The dynamics of individual behaviour of mode choice: the impacts of selected Brazilian urban mobility Policy’ instruments. Case Stud Transp Policy. 2021;9(3):1324–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2021.06.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Wen L, Bai L. System dynamics modeling and policy simulation for urban traffic: a case study in Beijing. Environ Model Assess. 2017;22(4):363–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-016-9539-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Yang Y, Xue H, Liu S, Wang Y. Is the decline of active travel to school unavoidable by-products of economic growth and urbanization in developing countries? Sustain Cities Soc. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101446.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Abidin NZ, Zaibidi NZ, Zulkepli JH. The role of physical activity to control obesity problem in Malaysia. AIP Conf Proc. 2014;1605:1140. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4887751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Abidin NZ, Jamil JM. Simulation analysis on the consequences of behavioural change towards combating obesity: system dynamics approach. J Teknol. 2016;78(6–5):115–21. https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v78.9009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Abidin NZ, Zulkepli JH, Zaibidi NZ. A system dynamics optimization framework to achieve population desired of average weight target. AIP Conf Proc. 2017;1905: 040001. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5012189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Basu S, Seligman H, Winkleby M. A metabolic—epidemiological microsimulation model to estimate the changes in energy intake and physical activity necessary to meet the healthy people 2020 obesity objective. Am J Public Health (1971). 2014;104(7):1209–16. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Carrete L, Arroyo P, Villasenor R. A socioecological view toward an understanding of how to prevent overweight in children. J Consum Mark. 2017;34(2):156–68. https://doi.org/10.1108/jcm-01-2016-1660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Lan T-S, Chen K-L, Chen P-C, Ku C-T, Chiu P-H, Wang M-H. An investigation of factors affecting elementary school students’ BMI values based on the system dynamics modeling. Comput Math Methods Med. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/575424.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Powell KE, Kibbe DL, Ferencik R, Soderquist C, Phillips MA, Vall EA, et al. Systems thinking and simulation modeling to inform childhood obesity policy and practice. Public Health Rep. 2017;132(2_suppl):33s–8s. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033354917723601.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Honeycutt AA, Wile K, Dove C, Hawkins J, Orenstein D. Strategic planning for chronic disease prevention in rural america: looking through a PRISM lens. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2015;21(4):392–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/phh.0000000000000062.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Kuo T, Robles B, Trogdon JG, Ferencik R, Simon PA, Fielding JE. Framing the local context and estimating the health impact of CPPW obesity prevention strategies in Los Angeles County, 2010–2012. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2016;22(4):360–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/phh.0000000000000334.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Yarnoff B, Bradley C, Honeycutt AA, Soler RE, Orenstein D. Estimating the relative impact of clinical and preventive community-based interventions: an example based on the community transformation grant program. Prev Chronic Dis. 2019. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd16.180594.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Almagor J, Martin A, McCrorie P, Mitchell R. How can an agent-based model explore the impact of interventions on children’s physical activity in an urban environment? Health Place. 2021;72: 102688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2021.102688.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Aziz HMA, Park BH, Morton A, Stewart RN, Hilliard M, Maness M. A high resolution agent-based model to support walk-bicycle infrastructure investment decisions: a case study with New York City. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol. 2018;86:280–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2017.11.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Aziza R, Borgi A, Zgaya H, Guinhouya B. SimNCD: an agent-based formalism for the study of noncommunicable diseases. Eng Appl Artif Intell. 2016;52:235–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2016.03.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Badland H, White M, Macaulay G, Eagleson S, Mavoa S, Pettit C, et al. Using simple agent-based modeling to inform and enhance neighborhood walkability. Int J Health Geogr. 2013;12(1):58. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-072X-12-58.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Beheshti R, Jalalpour M, Glass TA. Comparing methods of targeting obesity interventions in populations: an agent-based simulation. SSM Popul Health. 2017;3:211–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2017.01.006.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Blok DJ, van Lenthe FJ, de Vlas SJ. The impact of individual and environmental interventions on income inequalities in sports participation: explorations with an agent-based model. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2018;15(1):107. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-018-0740-y.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Brittin J, Araz OM, Ramirez-Nafarrate A, Huang TTK. An agent-based simulation model for testing novel obesity interventions in school environment design. IEEE Trans Eng Manag. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2021.30916000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Garcia LMT, Diez Roux AV, Martins ACR, Yang Y, Florindo AA. Exploring the emergence and evolution of population patterns of leisure-time physical activity through agent-based modelling. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2018;15(1):112. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-018-0750-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Jin X, White R. An agent-based model of the influence of neighbourhood design on daily trip patterns. Comput Environ Urban Syst. 2012;36:398–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2012.03.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Lemoine PD, Cordovez JM, Zambrano JM, Sarmiento OL, Meisel JD, Valdivia JA, et al. Using agent based modeling to assess the effect of increased Bus Rapid Transit system infrastructure on walking for transportation. Prev Med. 2016;88:39–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.03.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. McDonnell S, Zellner M. Exploring the effectiveness of bus rapid transit a prototype agent-based model of commuting behavior. Transp Policy. 2011;18:825–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2011.05.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Okushima M, Akiyama T. Multi-agent transport simulation model for eco-commuting promotion planning. J Adv Comput Intell Intell Inform. 2011;15:911–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Okushima M. Simulating social influences on sustainable mobility shifts for heterogeneous agents. Transportation. 2015;42:827–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-015-9649-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Orr MG, Kaplan GA, Galea S. Neighbourhood food, physical activity, and educational environments and black/white disparities in obesity: a complex systems simulation analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016;70(9):862–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2015-205621.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Powell-Wiley TM, Wong MS, Adu-Brimpong J, Brown ST, Hertenstein DL, Zenkov E, et al. Simulating the impact of crime on African American women’s physical activity and obesity. Obesity. 2017;25(12):2149–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.22040.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Salvo D, Leandro G, Rodrigo SR, Ivana S, Rahul G, Jasper S, et al. Physical activity promotion and the united nations sustainable development goals: building synergies to maximize impact. J Phys Act Health. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2021-0413.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Shoham DA, Tong L, Lamberson PJ, Auchincloss AH, Zhang J, Dugas L, et al. An actor-based model of social network influence on adolescent body size, screen time, and playing sports. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(6): e39795. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0039795.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Yang Y, Diez Roux AV, Auchincloss AH, Rodriguez DA, Brown DG. A spatial agent-based model for the simulation of adults’ daily walking within a city. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40(3):353–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2010.11.017.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Yang Y, Diez Roux AV, Auchincloss AH, Rodriguez DA, Brown DG. Exploring walking differences by socioeconomic status using a spatial agent-based model. Health Place. 2012;18(1):96–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2011.08.010.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Yang Y, Diez-Roux AV. Using an agent-based model to simulate children’s active travel to school. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013;10(1):67. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-10-67.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. Yang Y, Diez-Roux A, Evenson KR, Colabianchi N. Examining the impact of the walking school bus with an agent-based model. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(7):1196–203. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.301896.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Yang Y, Auchincloss AH, Rodriguez DA, Brown DG, Riolo R, Diez-Roux AV. Modeling spatial segregation and travel cost influences on utilitarian walking: towards policy intervention. Comput Environ Urban Syst. 2015;51:59–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2015.01.007.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Yin L. Assessing walkability in the city of Buffalo: an application of agent-based simulation. J Urban Plan Dev. 2013;139:166–75. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Zellner M, Massey D, Shiftan Y, Levine J, Arquero M. Overcoming the last-mile problem with transportation and land-use improvements: an agent-based approach. Int J Transp. 2016; https://doi.org/10.14257/ijt.2016.4.1.01

  99. Zhang J, Shoham DA, Tesdahl E, Gesell SB. Network interventions on physical activity in an afterschool program: an agent-based social network study. Am J Pub Health. 2015;105(Suppl 2(S2)):S236–43. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Zou M, Li M, Lin X, Xiong C, Mao C, Wan C, et al. An agent-based choice model for travel mode and departure time and its case study in Beijing. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol. 2016;64:133–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2015.06.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Frerichs L, Smith N, Kuhlberg JA, Mason G, Jackson-Diop D, Stith D, et al. Novel participatory methods for co-building an agent-based model of physical activity with youth. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(11): e0241108. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241108.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. Hennessy E, Ornstein JT, Economos CD, Herzog JB, Lynskey V, Coffield E, et al. Designing an agent-based model for childhood obesity interventions: a case study of childobesity180. Prev Chronic Dis. 2016;13:E04. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd13.150414.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Torrens PM, Nara A, Li X, Zhu H, Griffin WA, Brown SB. An extensible simulation environment and movement metrics for testing walking behavior in agent-based models. Comput Environ Urban Syst. 2012;36(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2011.07.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Amed S, Shea S, Pinkney S, Wharf Higgins J, Naylor P-J. Wayfinding the live 5–2–1–0 initiative—at the intersection between systems thinking and community-based childhood obesity prevention. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13060614.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. Macmillan AK, Mackie H, Hosking JE, Witten K, Smith M, Field A, et al. Controlled before-after intervention study of suburb-wide street changes to increase walking and cycling: Te Ara Mua-Future Streets study design. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):850. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5758-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. Newman L, Ludford I, Williams C, Herriot M. Applying health in all policies to obesity in South Australia. Health Promot Int. 2016;31(1):44–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dau064.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Signal LN, Walton MD, Mhurchu CN, Maddison R, Bowers SG, Carter KN, et al. Tackling “wicked” health promotion problems: a New Zealand case study. Health Promot Int. 2013;28(1):84–94. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/das006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Maitland N, Williams M, Jalaludin B, Allender S, Strugnell C, Brown A, et al. Campbelltown—changing our future: study protocol for a whole of system approach to childhood obesity in South Western Sydney. BMC Public Health. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7936-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. Vamos EP, Lewis E, Junghans C, Hrobonova E, Dunsford E, Millett C. Community-based pilot intervention to tackle childhood obesity: a whole-system approach. Public Health. 2016;140:109–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2016.07.013.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Waterlander WE, Luna Pinzon A, Verhoeff A, den Hertog K, Altenburg T, Dijkstra C, et al. A system dynamics and participatory action research approach to promote healthy living and a healthy weight among 10–14-year-old adolescents in Amsterdam: the LIKE Programme. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17144928.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  111. Watts P, Rance S, McGowan V, Brown H, Bambra C, Findlay G, et al. The long-term health and wellbeing impacts of Healthy New Towns (HNTs): protocol for a baseline and feasibility study of HNT demonstrator sites in England. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2020;6:4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-020-0550-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  112. Bartelink NHM, van Assema P, Jansen MWJ, Savelberg H, Moore GF, Hawkins J, et al. Process evaluation of the healthy primary School of the Future: the key learning points. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):698. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-6947-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. Knai C, Petticrew M, Douglas N, Durand MA, Eastmure E, Nolte E, et al. The public health responsibility deal: using a systems-level analysis to understand the lack of impact on alcohol, food, physical activity, and workplace health sub-systems. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15122895.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. Matheson A, Walton M, Gray R, Wehipeihana N, Wistow J. Strengthening prevention in communities through systems change: lessons from the evaluation of Healthy Families NZ. Health Promot Int. 2020;35(5):947–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daz092.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Ó Tuama D. Ripples through the city: Understanding the processes set in motion through embedding a public bike sharing scheme in a city. Res Transp Bus Manage. 2015;15:15–27. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2015.03.002

  116. Potts A, Shearn K, Frith G, Christy E. Working with local people as part of a whole-systems approach to physical activity: reflections from local delivery pilots. Perspect Public Health. 2021;141(2):74–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1757913920982645.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Nobles J, Christensen A, Butler M, Radley D, Pickering K, Saunders J, et al. Understanding how local authorities in England address obesity: a wider determinants of health perspective. Health Policy. 2019;123(10):998–1003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2019.07.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Serpas S, Brandstein K, McKennett M, Hillidge S, Zive M, Nader PR. San Diego healthy weight collaborative: a systems approach to address childhood obesity. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2013;24(2 Suppl):80–96. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2013.0107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Whelan J, Love P, Millar L, Allender S, Morley C, Bell C. A rural community moves closer to sustainable obesity prevention—an exploration of community readiness pre and post a community-based participatory intervention. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1420. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7644-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  120. Hall J, Bingham DD, Seims A, Dogra SA, Burkhardt J, Nobles J, et al. A whole system approach to increasing children’s physical activity in a multi-ethnic UK city: a process evaluation protocol. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):2296. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12255-w.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  121. Bagnall A-M, Radley D, Jones R, Gately P, Nobles J, Van Dijk M, et al. Whole systems approaches to obesity and other complex public health challenges: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6274-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  122. Bartelink NHM, van Assema P, Kremers SPJ, Savelberg H, Oosterhoff M, Willeboordse M, et al. Can the Healthy Primary School of the Future offer perspective in the ongoing obesity epidemic in young children? A Dutch quasi-experimental study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(10): e030676. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030676.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  123. Folta SC, Kuder JF, Goldberg JP, Hyatt RR, Must A, Naumova EN, et al. Changes in diet and physical activity resulting from the Shape Up Somerville community intervention. BMC Pediatr. 2013;13:157. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2431-13-157.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  124. Jacobs J, Strugnell C, Allender S, Orellana L, Backholer K, Bolton KA, et al. The impact of a community-based intervention on weight, weight-related behaviours and health-related quality of life in primary school children in Victoria, Australia, according to socio-economic position. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):2179. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12150-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  125. Lane A, Murphy N, Regan C, Callaghan D. Health promoting sports club in practice: a controlled evaluation of the GAA Healthy Club Project. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094786.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  126. Malakellis M, Hoare E, Sanigorski A, Crooks N, Allender S, Nichols M, et al. School-based systems change for obesity prevention in adolescents: outcomes of the Australian Capital Territory “It’s Your Move!” Aust N Z J Public Health. 2017;41(5):490–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12696.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Schwarte L, Samuels SE, Capitman J, Ruwe M, Boyle M, Flores G. The Central California Regional Obesity Prevention Program: changing nutrition and physical activity environments in California’s heartland. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(11):2124–8. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2010.203588.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  128. Brannan M, Bernardotto M, Clarke N, Varney J. Moving healthcare professionals—a whole system approach to embed physical activity in clinical practice. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(1):84. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1517-y.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  129. Smith R, Wood J, Jones F, Anderson L, Hurley M. Active residents in care homes: a holistic approach to promoting and encouraging meaningful activity for residents living in care homes: innovative practice. Dementia Int J Soc Res Pract. 2019;18(5):1942–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1471301217727129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Simione M, Moreno-Galarraga L, Perkins M, Price SN, Luo M, Kotelchuck M, et al. Effects of the first 1000 Days Program, a systems-change intervention, on obesity risk factors during pregnancy. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021;21(1):729. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-04210-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  131. Bellew W, Smith BJ, Nau T, Lee K, Reece L, Bauman A. Whole of systems approaches to physical activity policy and practice in Australia: the ASAPa Project overview and initial systems map. J Phys Act Health. 2020;17(1):68–73. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2019-0121.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. McGill E, Marks D, Er V, Penney T, Petticrew M, Egan M. Qualitative process evaluation from a complex systems perspective: a systematic review and framework for public health evaluators. PLoS Med. 2020;17(11): e1003368. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003368.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  133. Rigby BP, Dodd-Reynolds CJ, Oliver EJ. The understanding, application and influence of complexity in national physical activity policy-making. Health Res Policy Syst. 2022;20(1):59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-022-00864-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  134. Rusoja E, Haynie D, Sievers J, Mustafee N, Nelson F, Reynolds M, et al. Thinking about complexity in health: a systematic review of the key systems thinking and complexity ideas in health. J Eval Clin Pract. 2018;24(3):600–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12856.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  135. Nau T, Smith BJ, Bauman A, Bellew B. Legal strategies to improve physical activity in populations. Bull World Health Organ. 2021;99(8):593–602. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.20.273987.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  136. Bauman AE, Nau T, Cassidy S, Gilbert S, Bellew W, Smith BJ. Physical activity surveillance in Australia: standardisation is overdue. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2021;45:189–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.13085.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Bauman A, Pedisic Z. Chapter 5. Physical activity surveillance. 2020. In: Bellew B, Nau T, Smith B, Bauman A, editors. Getting Australia Active III A systems approach to physical activity for policy makers. Sydney: The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre and The University of Sydney. https://preventioncentre.org.au/resources/getting-australia-active-3-a-systems-approach-to-physical-activity-for-policy-makers/ Accessed 6 July 2022.

  138. UK Government Office for Science. Systems thinking for civil servants. 2022. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/systems-thinking-for-civil-servants Accessed 6 July 2022.

  139. Bellew B, Nau T, Smith B, Bauman A, editors. Getting Australia Active III A systems approach to physical activity for policy makers. Sydney: The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre and The University of Sydney. https://preventioncentre.org.au/resources/getting-australia-active-3-a-systems-approach-to-physical-activity-for-policy-makers/ Accessed 6 July 2022.

Download references

Funding

Funding for this research has been provided by the Australian Government’s Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF). The MRFF provides funding to support health and medical research and innovation to improve the health and well-being of Australians. MRFF funding has been provided to the Australian Prevention Partnership Centre under the MRFF Boosting Preventive Health Research programme. The funder played no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Prevention Research Collaboration, Charles Perkins Centre, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Tracy Nau, Adrian Bauman, Ben J. Smith & William Bellew

  2. The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Tracy Nau, Adrian Bauman, Ben J. Smith & William Bellew

Authors
  1. Tracy Nau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adrian Bauman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ben J. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. William Bellew
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors conceived the idea for this review and contributed to its design; TN conducted the literature search; AB and TN conducted the article screening; AB, WB and TN categorized the articles and developed the framework; WB, BJS and TN drafted the manuscript. All authors critically reviewed, revised, read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tracy Nau.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval and consent to participate were not required for this study as it was a review of the published peer-reviewed literature, with no human participation or collection or use of any personal data.

Consent for publication

Consent for publication was not required for this study as it was a review of the published peer-reviewed literature, with no human participation or collection or use of any personal data.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they do not have any competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Table S1.

Summary of included studies classified as Theorizing. Table S2. Summary of included studies classified as Prediction. Table S3. Summary of included studies classified as Intervention development. Table S4. Summary of included studies classified as Process evaluation. Table S5. Summary of included studies classified as Impact evaluation. Table S6. Summary of included studied classified as Unclear systems approaches.

Additional file 2.

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist – completed for the scoping review of systems approaches for increasing physical activity in populations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nau, T., Bauman, A., Smith, B.J. et al. A scoping review of systems approaches for increasing physical activity in populations. Health Res Policy Sys 20, 104 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-022-00906-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-022-00906-2

Keywords

Health Research Policy and Systems

ISSN: 1478-4505

Contact us