The health and socioeconomic impacts of major multi-sport events: systematic review (1978-2008).

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of major multi-sport events on health and socioeconomic determinants of health in the population of the city hosting the event. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: We searched the following sources without language restrictions for papers published between 1978 and 2008: Applied Social Science Index and Abstracts (ASSIA), British Humanities Index (BHI), Cochrane database of systematic reviews, Econlit database, Embase, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) database, Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) database, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS), Medline, PreMedline, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, Sportdiscus, Web of Knowledge, Worldwide Political Science Abstracts, and the grey literature. Review methods Studies of any design that assessed the health and socioeconomic impacts of major multi-sport events on the host population were included. We excluded studies that used exclusively estimated data rather than actual data, that investigated host population support for an event or media portrayals of host cities, or that described new physical infrastructure. Studies were selected and critically appraised by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: Fifty four studies were included. Study quality was poor, with 69% of studies using a repeat cross-sectional design and 85% of quantitative studies assessed as being below 2+ on the Health Development Agency appraisal scale, often because of a lack of comparison group. Five studies, each with a high risk of bias, reported health related outcomes, which were suicide, paediatric health service demand, presentations for asthma in children (two studies), and problems related to illicit drug use. Overall, the data did not indicate clear negative or positive health impacts of major multi-sport events on host populations. The most frequently reported outcomes were economic outcomes (18 studies). The outcomes used were similar enough to allow us to perform a narrative synthesis, but the overall impact of major multi-sport events on economic growth and employment was unclear. Two thirds of the economic studies reported increased economic growth or employment immediately after the event, but all these studies used some estimated data in their models, failed to account for opportunity costs, or examined only short term effects. Outcomes for transport were also similar enough to allow synthesis of six of the eight studies, which showed that event related interventions--including restricted car use and public transport promotion--were associated with significant short term reductions in traffic volume, congestion, or pollution in four out of five cities. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence is not sufficient to confirm or refute expectations about the health or socioeconomic benefits for the host population of previous major multi-sport events. Future events such as the 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, or the 2014 Commonwealth Games, cannot be expected to automatically provide benefits. Until decision makers include robust, long term evaluations as part of their design and implementation of events, it is unclear how the costs of major multi-sport events can be justified in terms of benefits to the host population.

"Profits before people"? A systematic review of the health and safety impacts of privatising public utilities and industries in developed countries.

Debates on government privatisation policies have often focused on the alleged effects of privatisation on health and safety. A systematic review (through Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis) of the effects of privatising industries and utilities on the health (including injuries) of employees and the public was conducted. The data sources were electronic databases (medical, social science and economic), bibliographies and expert contacts. Experimental and quasi-experimental studies were sought, dating from 1945, from any Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development member country (in any language) that evaluated the health outcomes of such interventions. Eleven highly heterogeneous studies that evaluated the health impacts of privatisation of building, water, paper, cement, bus, rail, mining, electric and gas companies were identified. The most robust study found increases in the measures of stress-related ill health among employees after a privatisation intervention involving company downsizing. No robust evidence was found to link privatisation with increased injury rates for employees or customers. In conclusion, public debates on the health and safety implications of privatisation have a poor empirical base, which policy makers and researchers need to address. Some evidence suggests that adverse health outcomes could result from redundancies associated with privatisation.

Interventions to promote walking: systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of interventions to promote walking in individuals and populations. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Published and unpublished reports in any language identified by searching 25 electronic databases, by searching websites, reference lists, and existing systematic reviews, and by contacting experts. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic search for and appraisal of controlled before and after studies of the effects of any type of intervention on how much people walk, the distribution of effects on walking between social groups, and any associated effects on overall physical activity, fitness, risk factors for disease, health, and wellbeing. RESULTS: We included 19 randomised controlled trials and 29 non-randomised controlled studies. Interventions tailored to people's needs, targeted at the most sedentary or at those most motivated to change, and delivered either at the level of the individual (brief advice, supported use of pedometers, telecommunications) or household (individualised marketing) or through groups, can encourage people to walk more, although the sustainability, generalisability, and clinical benefits of many of these approaches are uncertain. Evidence for the effectiveness of interventions applied to workplaces, schools, communities, or areas typically depends on isolated studies or subgroup analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The most successful interventions could increase walking among targeted participants by up to 30-60 minutes a week on average, at least in the short term. From a perspective of improving population health, much of the research currently provides evidence of efficacy rather than effectiveness. Nevertheless, interventions to promote walking could contribute substantially towards increasing the activity levels of the most sedentary.

Systematic reviews of health effects of social interventions: 2. Best available evidence: how low should you go?

STUDY OBJECTIVE: There is little guidance on how to select the best available evidence of health effects of social interventions. The aim of this paper was to assess the implications of setting particular inclusion criteria for evidence synthesis. DESIGN: Analysis of all relevant studies for one systematic review, followed by sensitivity analysis of the effects of selecting studies based on a two dimensional hierarchy of study design and study population. SETTING: Case study of a systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions in promoting a population shift from using cars towards walking and cycling. MAIN RESULTS: The distribution of available evidence was skewed. Population level interventions were less likely than individual level interventions to have been studied using the most rigorous study designs; nearly all of the population level evidence would have been missed if only randomised controlled trials had been included. Examining the studies that were excluded did not change the overall conclusions about effectiveness, but did identify additional categories of intervention such as health walks and parking charges that merit further research, and provided evidence to challenge assumptions about the actual effects of progressive urban transport policies. CONCLUSIONS: Unthinking adherence to a hierarchy of study design as a means of selecting studies may reduce the value of evidence synthesis and reinforce an "inverse evidence law" whereby the least is known about the effects of interventions most likely to influence whole populations. Producing generalisable estimates of effect sizes is only one possible objective of evidence synthesis. Mapping the available evidence and uncertainty about effects may also be important.

Systematic reviews of health effects of social interventions: 1. Finding the evidence: how far should you go?

STUDY OBJECTIVE: There is little guidance on how to identify useful evidence about the health effects of social interventions. The aim of this study was to assess the value of different ways of finding this type of information. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of the sources of studies for one systematic review. SETTING: Case study of a systematic review of the effectiveness of interventions in promoting a population shift from using cars towards walking and cycling. MAIN RESULTS: Only four of the 69 relevant studies were found in a "first-line" health database such as Medline. About half of all relevant studies were found through the specialist Transport database. Nine relevant studies were found through purposive internet searches and seven relevant studies were found by chance. The unique contribution of experts was not to identify additional studies, but to provide more information about those already found in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the evidence needed for this review was not found in studies indexed in familiar literature databases. Applying a sensitive search strategy across multiple databases and interfaces is very labour intensive. Retrospective analysis suggests that a more efficient method might have been to search a few key resources, then to ask authors and experts directly for the most robust reports of studies identified. However, internet publications and serendipitous discoveries did make a significant contribution to the total set of relevant evidence. Undertaking a comprehensive search may provide unique evidence and insights that would not be obtained using a more focused search.

Does 'welfare-to-work' work? A systematic review of the effectiveness of the UK's welfare-to-work programmes for people with a disability or chronic illness.

Welfare-to-work programmes promoting employment of people with a disability or chronic illness are an expanding aspect of welfare reform in the UK. What evidence is there of impact on employment outcomes? This paper presents a systematic review of the evidence on UK policy initiatives. Both quantitative and qualitative studies were identified: 5399 abstracts were located, from which 16 studies were critically appraised. Overall, each of the five main welfare-to-work strategies operating in the 1990s helped people with disabilities into work, who were previously on benefits. The proportion of participants gaining employment after involvement ranged from 11% to 50%, dependent on characteristics of participants, such as 'job-readiness', as well as wider labour market context. As most studies were uncontrolled, it was difficult to determine if the improved employment chances were due to the effectiveness of the welfare-to-work interventions themselves or to external factors. Wider impact, such as uptake of schemes as a proportion of the total target population, was weak. The qualitative components identified barriers and facilitators concerned with effective implementation, to aid design of future initiatives.

Promoting walking and cycling as an alternative to using cars: systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess what interventions are effective in promoting a population shift from using cars towards walking and cycling and to assess the health effects of such interventions. DATA SOURCES: Published and unpublished reports in any language identified from electronic databases, bibliographies, websites, and reference lists. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic search and appraisal to identify experimental or observational studies with a prospective or controlled retrospective design that evaluated any intervention applied to an urban population or area by measuring outcomes in members of the local population. RESULTS: 22 studies met the inclusion criteria. We found some evidence that targeted behaviour change programmes can change the behaviour of motivated subgroups, resulting (in the largest study) in a shift of around 5% of all trips at a population level. Single studies of commuter subsidies and a new railway station also showed positive effects. The balance of best available evidence about publicity campaigns, engineering measures, and other interventions suggests that they have not been effective. Participants in trials of active commuting experienced short term improvements in certain measures of health and fitness, but we found no good evidence on effects on health of any effective intervention at population level. CONCLUSIONS: The best available evidence of effectiveness in promoting a modal shift is for targeted behaviour change programmes, but the social distribution of their effects is unclear and some other types of intervention have yet to be rigorously evaluated.

New roads and human health: a systematic review.

We sought to synthesize evidence of the health effects of construction of new roads by systematically reviewing observational studies of such effects. We included and critically appraised 32 studies. The review suggested that out-of-town bypasses decrease injuries on main roads through or around towns, although more robust evidence is needed on effects on secondary roads. New major urban roads have statistically insignificant effects on injury incidence. New major roads between towns decrease injuries. Out-of-town bypasses reduce disturbance and community severance in towns but increase them elsewhere. Major urban roads increase disturbance and severance. More robust research is needed in this area, particularly regarding effects of new roads on respiratory health, mental health, access to health services, and physical activity.