SynthesisHealth education research2026
Evaluating public health campaigns on health promotion, substance use prevention and physical activity: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Health education research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Public health campaigns on substance use and physical activity aid disease prevention. This review examines how process evaluations are conducted in substance use and physical activity campaigns, focusing on methodologies, theoretical frameworks, implementation quality, fidelity, reach, and delivery. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest, and Google Scholar from 1990 up to April 2025. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental, and observational designs involving adult human participants and reporting process or implementation evaluation components. Twenty-one studies met inclusion criteria. A one-step forward citation analysis was performed using the bibliometrix package in R. Findings revealed that 62% of studies reported process evaluation components, with 52% employing mixed-method approaches. Commonly cited theoretical frameworks included the Transtheoretical Model, Theory of Planned Behaviour, and Social Cognitive Theory. Only 20% of studies explicitly defined process evaluation objectives, and few translated findings into actionable implementation adaptations. Bibliometric analysis indicated influence across 373 publications, primarily from the United States, Australia, and Canada. Overall, process evaluation in public health campaigns remain inconsistent. To enhance the quality and utility of such evaluations, greater theoretical integration, improved methodological transparency, and the use of standardized assessment tools are recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.