Assessing Open Science practices in physical activity behaviour change intervention evaluations

Abstract

ObjectivesConcerns on the lack of reproducibility and transparency in science have led to a range of research practice reforms, broadly referred to as ‘Open Science’. The extent that physical activity interventions are embedding Open Science practices is currently unknown. In this study, we randomly sampled 100 reports of recent physical activity randomised controlled trial behaviour change interventions to estimate the prevalence of Open Science practices.MethodsOne hundred reports of randomised controlled trial physical activity behaviour change interventions published between 2018 and 2021 were identified, as used within the Human Behaviour-Change Project. Open Science practices were coded in identified reports, including: study pre-registration, protocol sharing, data, materials and analysis scripts sharing, replication of a previous study, open access publication, funding sources and conflict of interest statements. Coding was performed by two independent researchers, with inter-rater reliability calculated using Krippendorff’s alpha.Results78 of the 100 reports provided details of study pre-registration and 41% provided evidence of a published protocol. 4% provided accessible open data, 8% provided open materials and 1% provided open analysis scripts. 73% of reports were published as open access and no studies were described as replication attempts. 93% of reports declared their sources of funding and 88% provided conflicts of interest statements. A Krippendorff’s alpha of 0.73 was obtained across all coding.ConclusionOpen data, materials, analysis and replication attempts are currently rare in physical activity behaviour change intervention reports, whereas funding source and conflict of interest declarations are common. Future physical activity research should increase the reproducibility of their methods and results by incorporating more Open Science practices.

Prevalence and predictors of data and code sharing in the medical and health sciences: systematic review with meta-analysis of individual participant data

“…More literature searches identified another 44 eligible reports for inclusion, giving a total of 114 eligible meta-research studies examining a combined total of 2 254 031 primary articles for the review. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 ...…”

“…Supplementary results in the supplementary information provides further information on the individual participant data retrieval process, as well as the outcomes of the data integrity checks. In total, 108 reports of 105 meta-research studies assessing a total of 2 121 580 primary articles were included in the quantitative analysis, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 ...…”

Do randomised clinical trials on dental caries adopt Open Science Practices?

“…Indeed, guidelines for reporting RCT are pioneers in this sense [29]. In fact, a higher frequency (78%) than the one observed in our study was evidenced among interventional studies on physical activity behaviour change [30].…”

Measuring the growing impact ofBOSEM: halfway there or living on a prayer?

“…We, in part, attribute this meteoric rise to the dynamic nature of our diverse editorial board, which brings together a broad range of future Open access academic and clinical leaders 7 as well as the open-access nature of the journal, which supports a push towards Open Science practices within the field. 8 When we compare ourselves to other Q1 Sports Science journals, we compare favourably, and our calculations support the notion that BOSEM has marked potential to be a leading journal within the field with continued expected growth. We acknowledge that despite a strong position based on our own calculations and perceptions, nothing is a given.…”

“…6 With a 45% increase from the previous year, our calculated unofficial JIF placed us fourth for the highest percentage difference compared with these journals (figure 1). We, in part, attribute this meteoric rise to the dynamic nature of our diverse editorial board, which brings together a broad range of future academic and clinical leaders7 as well as the open-access nature of the journal, which supports a push towards Open Science practices within the field 8. When we compare ourselves to other Q1 Sports Science journals, we compare favourably, and our calculations support the notion that BOSEM has marked potential to be a leading journal within the field with continued expected growth.…”