Table 1

Characteristics of included reviews

ReviewWeed et al14McCartney et al6
Question posed by reviewFour questions were established for the review:
(1) What evidence exists that the Olympic Games, sports events or sports franchises can impact upon physical activity and sport participation and upon health-related behaviours?
(2) By what processes have physical activity and sport participation and health-related behaviours been leveraged from the Olympic Games, sports events or sports franchises?
(3) What processes that have been used to leverage, inter alia, volunteering, community engagement and tourism from the Olympic Games, sports events and sports franchises might inform leveraging strategies for physical activity, sport and health?
(4) How has the leveraging of a range of opportunities from Olympic Games, sports events and sports franchises been evaluated?
To assess the effects of major multisport events on health and socioeconomic determinants of health in the population of the city hosting the event
Search strategyPublished literature via SPORTS DISCUS ,CINAHL, PsychINFO, MEDLINE,
▸ Web of Knowledge (General Science and Social Science Database)
In addition several sources for ‘grey literature’ were searched (see full paper for more details)
Papers published between 1978 and 2008
From 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
In addition an ‘extensive’ search of the grey literature (between April & October 2008) was carried out (see individual review for full details)
No of included studies2454
Quality appraisal tool used to assess included studiesA rudimentary quality appraisal sheet was agreed by all authors and review panel as being relevant to the research question (Weed M. personal communication (via email), 15 August 2012)Assessed using a modified version of the Hamilton quality assessment tool
Overall comment on quality of included studiesVariable. With reference to our primary outcome, was assessed to be generally poorStudy quality was ‘poor’