Browse

Social media usage has soared in the last decade, with the majority of adults having an account on at least one platform. Sites such as LinkedIn, X, and TikTok allow users to share content using different forms, for example, written or video, long form or short form. Social media can be used by researchers to forge collaborations, rapidly disseminate new research, and demonstrate societal impact. This opinion piece aims to highlight the value of social media, in particular for early career researchers, and offer suggestions on how early career researchers can strategically use social media to build a network and an online presence. We reflect on our own experiences of social media and include some of the reasons we have been deterred from it in the past, such as fear of making a mistake, being misunderstood, or painted as being an overconfident “know it all.” As the demonstration of impact and engagement becomes ever more important in grant applications and job security, social media competency is a powerful professional skill that will be important for all scientists.

In the rapidly evolving landscape of global health research, the tension between scientific rigor and contextual meaning presents a critical challenge. Drawing on our work with the Global Diet and Physical Activity Network, this commentary explores the complexities of conducting environmental audits for physical activity and diet in 4 rapidly urbanizing African cities: Yaoundé, Lagos, Cape Town, and Soweto. We illustrate the competing demands and tensions that researchers face in balancing rigor and meaning. We discuss the adaptation of internationally validated audit tools to local contexts and the importance of area-level deprivation in interpreting data. We also examine the feasibility of virtual assessment tools, emphasizing the value of local expertise. We argue for a balanced approach that marries research rigor with contextual meaning, advocating for transparency, humility, and meaningful community engagement.

Physical activity is a beneficial, yet complex, health behavior. To ensure more people experience the benefits of physical activity, we develop and test interventions to promote physical activity and its associated benefits. Nevertheless, we continue to see certain groups of people who choose not to, or are unable to, take part in research, resulting in “recruitment bias.” In fact, we (and others) are seemingly missing large segments of people and are doing little to promote physical activity research to equity-deserving populations. So, how can we better address recruitment bias in the physical activity research we conduct? Based on our experience, we have identified 5 broad, interrelated, and applicable strategies to enhance recruitment and engagement within physical activity interventions: (1) gain trust, (2) increase community support and participation, (3) consider alternative approaches and designs, (4) rethink recruitment strategies, and (5) incentivize participants. While we recognize there is still a long way to go, and there are broader community and societal issues underlying recruitment to research, we hope this commentary prompts researchers to consider what they can do to try to address the ever-present limitation of “recruitment bias” and support greater participation among equity-deserving groups.

Adequate participation in physical activity (PA) is effective in reducing negative health outcomes, including cardiovascular disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, as well as stress, anxiety, and depression. However, 1 in 4 adults meet the PA guidelines, with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons reporting increased rates of inactivity and higher rates of negative health outcomes. Limited research can be conducted on best methods to promote PA among LGBTQ+ adults as there is a lack of standardized measurements for both sexual orientation status and PA used in US national data set methodologies. A call to action is warranted to highlight the lack of uniform methodologies for collecting both sexual orientation and PA data in national data sets, with an overall goal of promoting inclusion and transparency of sexual orientation as a primary, secondary, and tertiary influence on PA. The current societal disconnect of national data sets collecting sexual orientation does not allow for proper extrapolation within the LGBTQ+ classifications. LGBTQ+ identities each report differing PA and health outcomes, promoting the need for proper sexual orientation measures. Without this inclusion, we will continue to see larger health disparities among LGBTQ+ persons due to outdated measurements in current US national data sets. This commentary provides sexual orientation status on health outcomes linked to physical inactivity, the need to include uniform sexual orientation measures in national data sets, and implications of the inclusion of this measure to conduct PA research as it relates to health outcomes.

Background: Climate change, increasing recognition of institutionalized discrimination, and the COVID-19 pandemic are large-scale, societal events (ie, forces of change) that affect the timing, settings, and modes of youth physical activity. Despite the impact that forces of change have on youth physical activity and physical activity environments, few studies consider how they affect physical activity promotion. Methods: The authors use 2 established frameworks, the ecological model of physical activity and the youth physical activity timing, how, and setting framework, to highlight changes in physical activity patterns of youth in North America that have resulted from contemporary forces of change. Results: North American countries—Canada, Mexico, and the United States—have faced similar but contextually different challenges for promoting physical activity in response to climate change, increasing recognition of institutionalized discrimination, and the COVID-19 pandemic. Innovative applications of implementation science, digital health technologies, and community-based participatory research methodologies may be practical for increasing and sustaining youth physical activity in response to these forces of change. Conclusions: Thoughtful synthesis of existing physical activity frameworks can help to guide the design and evaluation of new and existing physical activity initiatives. Researchers, practitioners, and policymakers are encouraged to carefully consider the intended and unintended consequences of actions designed to respond to forces of change.

Background: A significant gap remains between the availability of physical activity (PA) evidence-based interventions and their application in real-world settings in policy and practice areas. This study aims to describe highly cited and high altmetrics publications in PA research and explore their impact on PA policy and practice. Methods: Mixed-methods sequential explanatory study including the identification and description of the top highly cited and high altmetrics PA publications from the last 10 years (including study design, population, type of PA study, number of citations, and altmetrics score), and interviews with key informants regarding research dissemination and implications on PA policy and practice. Results: When considering publication type, the most frequent highly cited publications were health consequences (40%, altmetrics = 42%), measurement/trends (23%, altmetrics = 10%), and correlates/determinants (21%, altmetrics = 26%) studies. They were predominantly cross-sectional (50%, altmetrics = 28%), systematic reviews (38%, altmetrics = 18%), and longitudinal studies (8%, altmetrics = 37%). All authors who participated in the interviews agreed that the most important factors in disseminating findings and influencing PA policy and practice were the published peer-reviewed manuscript itself, the reputation of the journal, the communication strategy, and the use of online platforms. Conclusions: To have a real-world influence on PA policy and practice, it is not enough to publish the results in scientific journals and participate in media outreach. To successfully involve policymakers and communities in appropriating the evidence and evaluating the extent to which these findings affect policy and practice outcomes, it is critical to lead co-creation, co-dissemination, advocacy, and capacity building efforts.