The impact of public policy on socioeconomic equity in physical activity: a systematic review

Increasing population-level physical activity (PA) requires system-level policy action. However, public policies targeting the general population, without addressing socially disadvantaged populations, might unintentionally increase socioeconomic inequities in PA. This is particularly concerning since disadvantaged groups are less likely to meet PA recommendations to begin with. This systematic review assesses evidence on the effects of public policies on equity in PA. A literature search was performed in seven bibliographic databases on May 7, 2024, in collaboration with a librarian. Studies were included if they a) focused on changes in PA behaviour, PA proxies, or the PA environment as outcomes, b) examined public policy as the independent variable, and c) included a low socioeconomic status (SES) (sub)population. Screening was done in duplicate. Key data extracted included: public policy information, target population and/or SES subgroup measures, PA outcomes, and equity-related findings. Policies were grouped into domains aligned with the eight investments of the International Society for Physical Activity and Health and categorized based on their impact on inequities: reduction, increase, no effect, or mixed effects. Out of 10,350 records screened, 81 studies were included. Results showed that 27% of the public policies reduced inequities, 38% had no effect, 10% increased them, and 25% had mixed effects. The fewest PA policies were identified in the healthcare (n = 2) and workplace (n = 0) domains, the most in the community-wide domain (n = 22). Based on the available evidence, the school, transport, community-wide, and mass media policy domains most frequently demonstrated potential to reduce inequities in PA and/or to benefit high and low SES populations equally. Policies that most consistently reduced inequities or had a neutral equity effect included a) infrastructure policies, b) financial incentives supporting active transport, c) multi-component school-based PA and health policy programmes, d) school physical education policies, and e) policies supporting mass media campaigns. Conversely, urban design and sport for all policies varied in their effects on inequities. Most policies do not appear to exacerbate inequities. Policies in the school, transport, community-wide, and mass media domains show particular promise for promoting PA in an equitable way. These findings offer valuable insights for future policymaking.