Next Article in Journal
The Effect of Contrast Water Therapy on Dehydration during Endurance Training Camps in Moderate-Altitude Environments
Previous Article in Journal
Recovery Methods in Basketball: A Systematic Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sports
Volume 11
Issue 12
10.3390/sports11120231
sports-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Conceptualisation and Measurement of Social Cohesion within the Sport and Physical Activity Context: A Scoping Review

by
Louis Moustakas
* and
Jule Wagner
Institute for European Sport Development and Leisure Studies, German Sport University, 50933 Cologne, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sports 2023, 11(12), 231; https://doi.org/10.3390/sports11120231
Submission received: 23 October 2023 / Revised: 10 November 2023 / Accepted: 16 November 2023 / Published: 22 November 2023
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Sport, physical activity and social cohesion are increasingly linked within the academic literature. Indeed, studies recognise both the importance of social cohesion for promoting physical activity and the potential of sport to support social cohesion. Up until now, however, the ways in which social cohesion has been defined and measured in the context of sport and physical activity have not been the subject of much academic attention. Through a scoping review of studies measuring social cohesion in the sport and physical activity context, we aim to uncover how social cohesion is defined and measured, thus allowing us to better grasp how the concept is understood and operationalised in this field. As such, full-text inclusion occurred when studies quantitatively measured social cohesion through a questionnaire/survey instrument in connection with sport or physical activity participation or within programmes using sport to foster social cohesion. A total of 40 papers were included in the review, showing broad support for the argument that social cohesion is positively related to sport or physical activity participation. However, the retained texts engage on only a surface level with the concept of social cohesion, with around half not defining the term and the associated measurement tools using only a fraction of the dimensions typically associated with social cohesion. To conclude, we propose future directions to enhance conceptual engagement with and measurement of social cohesion.

1. Introduction

At its simplest, social cohesion is understood as the traits of a society that bind it together and allow it to move forward in a common direction. An often-debated and highly multi-dimensional concept, social cohesion is broadly understood as a combination of strong social relations, a sense of belonging, and an orientation towards the common good. Regardless of the exact conceptualisation, there is general agreement within the academic literature that social cohesion is an important component of promoting economic growth or peace [1], as well as addressing emerging crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic [2,3].
Relatedly, sport, physical activity and social cohesion are increasingly linked within this literature. Studies concerning the relationship with physical activity have become a significant strand within social cohesion research [4], and studies concerning the influence of sport activities or interventions on social cohesion have likewise increased in quantity sharply over the last 15 years [5]. This has come as policy, programmes and literature increasingly recognise the role of sport in potentially fostering social cohesion [6,7], as well as the importance of social cohesion in promoting sport and physical activity participation [8]. Indeed, on the one hand, sport is increasingly understood as having broad cross-cultural appeal and offering a dynamic, interactive setting that may help bring groups together and offer opportunities to support social cohesion [5]. On the other hand, social cohesion and its related sub-dimensions, such as strong social relationships, trust in others and a sense of belonging, are also understood as important facilitators of broader sport or physical activity participation [8].
Yet, although these connections are increasingly recognised, there are concerns about how rigorously the term is defined and conceptualised within sport-related literature. There are numerous competing definitions or conceptualisations of the term [9], but recent work has illustrated how the term can be ill-defined at both the programme level and within segments of the sport-related academic literature [5,10]. Similarly, in the broader field of health research, there are criticisms that researchers use the terms social capital and social cohesion interchangeably, although social capital can arguably be understood as only one dimension of the broader social cohesion picture [11,12,13]. Up until now, however, the ways social cohesion has been defined and, in particular, measured in the sport and physical activity contexts have not been the subject of much academic attention.
Definition and, by extension, measurement are essential to effectively validating the claims linking sport, physical activity, and social cohesion. Vague or absent definitions open up the risk that researchers or implementers enact their interpretations of social cohesion in measurement and evaluation without taking into account existing work on social cohesion, never mind local knowledge and perspectives [10,14]. Thorough definitions and associated measurements are also crucial to truly be able to isolate social cohesion and its sub-dimensions and understand the dynamic relationship between social cohesion, sport, and physical activity.
It is against this background that this paper is situated. Through a scoping review of studies measuring social cohesion in the sport and physical activity context, we aim to uncover how social cohesion is defined and measured, thus allowing us to better grasp how the concept is understood and operationalised in this field. In particular, we aim to document the definitions, dimensions and survey tools used in the studies. From this, we can better understand how social cohesion is conceptualised and measured, as well as further propose research and practical directions for this research area.

2. Methodology

Scoping reviews are a way of synthesizing knowledge in emerging or complex areas of study. In particular, scoping reviews can be used to map evidence associated with a topic, clarify concepts, and identify gaps [15]. As our research questions, which we expand on below, centre around understanding the definition and measurement of social cohesion in the sport and physical activity context, a scoping review was deemed appropriate.
For the following, we use the approach proposed by Arksey and O’Malley [16] to structure our review. As such, the review followed the five steps presented by the authors, namely: (1) identifying the research questions; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) study selection; (4) charting the data; (5) collating, summarizing and reporting the results. Overall, our scoping review began in January 2023 and took approximately ten months to complete. In the following subsections, we detail the process associated with each of the five steps. Reporting of the results further aligns with PRISMA guidance on scoping reviews, and a PRISMA Scoping Review Extension checklist is provided within the supplementary materials.

2.1. Identification of the Research Questions

According to Arksey and O’Malley [16], research questions should guide the search strategy, not be overly narrow so that they limit the analytical process, and also be broad enough to identify relevant literature. As such, in line with the aims of our study, we developed three research questions to structure our work: (1) What tools are used to measure social cohesion in the sport and physical activity context? (2) What dimensions of social cohesion are reflected in these tools? (3) What is the relationship between sport, physical activity and social cohesion documented in the studies?

2.2. Determination of Relevant Studies

Numerous multidisciplinary and thematically relevant databases were selected, and various search combinations were piloted. A final search string was chosen ((“sport*” OR “physical activity” OR “leisure”) AND (“social cohesion”)) that balances the breadth and relevance of results as well as overall feasibility. Thus, terms often connected to social cohesion but that are distinct theoretical concepts, such as social capital or social inclusion, were not used to focus explicitly on the core concept at the heart of our research questions. Otherwise, the terms sport and physical activity are rather explicit and tend to capture literature in the physical education context. Finally, the term leisure was also adopted, as it helps to capture the literature concerning different forms of mobility undertaken for pleasure/health (e.g., walking or cycling for leisure) that can thus be broadly understood as physical activity.
Several high-quality databases, including Web of Science and SportDiscus, were used to generate results. Ultimately, databases were selected for their inclusion of relevant sport and health literature, as well as their ability to support data extraction for a review. Table 1 summarises the overall search terms and databases.

2.3. Study Selection

Cadima software version 2.2.4 [17] was used to manage and streamline the process of abstract and full-text screening. Both authors reviewed each abstract and subsequent full-text, and a unanimous decision was required for texts to progress to full-text screening and, later, to full-text inclusion. Full-text inclusion occurred when studies quantitatively measured social cohesion through a questionnaire/survey instrument in connection with sport or physical activity participation, or within programmes using sport to foster social cohesion. Texts discussing social cohesion outside of the sport and physical activity context, such as in relation to transport, mobility, nutrition or sedentary behaviour, were excluded, as were texts relying on secondary data to assess social cohesion. In addition, using inbuilt functions within the respective databases, searches were limited to peer-reviewed journal publications, books, book chapters, and theses/dissertations published in English between 1994 and 2022. The full inclusion and exclusion criteria are summarised in Table 2, while the overall text selection process is depicted in Figure 1.

2.4. Charting the Data

The next stage of the process involved charting and data extraction from the included studies. We carried out this process using a shared spreadsheet and collected bibliographic and methodological information for all included studies. In terms of bibliographic and methodological information, we collected: author(s); year; journal; country of study; research questions; study design; and sample size and information. For the measurement instruments, we further looked at what tools were used to assess both physical activity as well as social cohesion. In particular, for the measurement of social cohesion, we charted the definition of social cohesion employed, the nature of the tool employed (e.g., self-designed or based on previous work), the social cohesion dimensions reflected in the tool, as well as any other social constructs captured in the study (e.g., neighbourhood aesthetics, self-efficacy, etc.)
To code the social cohesion dimensions embedded in the measurement tools, we used the dimensions of social cohesion from the conceptualisation put forth by the Bertelsmann Stiftung [18,19]. The work of this institution has served as the basis for many national and international studies (e.g., [20]) and breaks down social cohesion into three related dimensions. The first is social relations, which includes social networks, trust in people, and acceptance of diversity. The second is connectedness, which includes notions of identification, trust in institutions, and perception of fairness. Finally, there is a focus on the common good, which comprises ideas of solidarity, helpfulness, respect for social rules, and civic participation. These dimensions are outlined and described in Table 3. In addition, we coded for a dimension of shared values, as many definitions contend that shared values are important for social cohesion, though they do not always go into depth concerning the definition or nature of those values [9,21].
The first and second authors then undertook a pilot charting process that involved data extraction from three texts to become familiarized with the process and ensure consistency. Thereafter, charting was conducted by the second author, and both authors discussed any open questions and uncertainties to ensure continued consistency in the charting process. In addition, the first author randomly reviewed the charting of about 35% of the texts to verify quality and address emerging issues.

2.5. Collating and Reporting Results

Both frequency analysis and deductive coding were used to summarise and report the results. The variables extracted for the frequency analysis included: publication year, country of study, journal, study design, study sample, and measurement tools used. As discussed above, the deductive coding allowed us to identify the social cohesion dimensions in the measurement tools. Based on the results of this coding, we then conducted a frequency analysis to document the occurrence of each dimension.

3. Results

As depicted in the flow chart within Figure 1, from an initial pool of 789 records, 40 full texts were retained for extraction. As for the 55 excluded texts, the main reasons for exclusion included the use of secondary data (n = 32, e.g., national health surveys or census) and lack of investigation of the relationship between sport/physical activity and social cohesion (n = 11). Other reasons for exclusion included a lack of focus on social cohesion, a lack of focus on physical activity or sport, and non-English full texts. An overview of the retained texts, including bibliographic and methodological information, is presented in Table 4. Full results and analysis are described in the subsequent sub-sections.

3.1. General Study Characteristics

3.1.1. Publication Year

Even though we set the timeframe for a review from 1994 onwards, no publications on the topic were found from before the year 2004. In total, the years of publication ranged from 2004 to 2022. Interest in the topic has risen over time, with 75% (n = 30) of the articles being published within the last decade (2012–2022).

3.1.2. Journals

The articles were published in 24 different journals. BMC Public Health featured the most articles (n = 5), followed by Preventive Medicine (n = 4). Three articles each were published in the Journal of Aging and Physical Activity and Social Science and Medicine. Furthermore, two articles each were published in Health and Place, Health Education and Behavior, the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity and the Journal of Physical Activity and Health.

3.1.3. Research Locations

The studies were conducted in 11 different countries on all 5 continents. Over half of the studies were conducted in the United States of America (n = 22). Consequently, with one additional study from Canada, North America was the continent where most studies took place (n = 23). Five studies each were conducted in Australia and Europe (France (1), Germany (1), Spain (1) and the Netherlands (2)). In Asia (China (2), Sri Lanka (1)) and South America (Brazil (3)), three studies were conducted. Only one study took place in Africa (Kenya). The research locations of the different studies indicate that research primarily focuses on the Global North, with only a few studies conducted in the Global South.

3.1.4. Methodology

Most studies used a cross-sectional approach (n = 33). Two of the seven longitudinal study designs additionally employed a quasi-experimental setting with a control and an intervention group.

3.1.5. Study Population

The sample sizes of the studies ranged from 39 to 14.924. A total of 12 samples contained less than 500 participants, and only 2 samples consisted of more than 10,000 participants. The average age of participants ranged from 3.8 years old to 74.5 years old. A total of 15 studies did not give a mean value for the age of its participants. The majority of studies were conducted with adults (n = 30) or both adolescents and adults (1). From these, seven studies focused on either middle-aged or middle-aged and older citizens (30–40-year-olds, up to 65–84-year-olds). Additionally, nine studies only looked at citizens aged fifty years and older. Consequently, nine studies were conducted with children, predominantly older children and adolescents (8–19-year-olds). Two studies also included smaller children aged two to seven.
The percentage of female participants ranged from 42.30% to 74%. Additionally, five studies specifically targeted women. Of these, two focused on mothers and two focused on Latina women living in the US. Furthermore, one study each investigated the experiences of Latino Americans, African Americans, and South Asian Americans, respectively.

3.2. Physical Activity

Only two studies did not use any measurement of physical activity. One of these examined the effect of an intercultural movement programme and thus did not have to measure physical activity separately [63]. The other study solely investigated which physical and social environment factors were associated with physical activity to develop a measurement tool [68].
A total of 23 studies used previously established tools to measure the physical activity of participants. The most commonly featured tool was the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ), used in eight studies. A total of 15 studies used self-designed measurements to assess physical activity. The majority of studies relied on self- or caregiver-reported physical activity. However, five studies (additionally) used technical devices such as accelerometers to measure physical activity.
Most studies looked at physical activity in general, which was often divided into the categories of walking, moderate physical activity and vigorous physical activity. Seven studies solely examined the walking behaviour of participants and three studies only considered physical activity or play that happened outdoors. Furthermore, two studies included participation in recreational programmes or community-based activities in their physical activity measurement.

3.3. Definition and Measurement Tools for Social Cohesion

Over half of the articles did not give a clear definition of the term social cohesion (n = 24, 60%). Of the articles that defined social cohesion, seven used the definition of Kawachi and Berkmann [29], who define social cohesion as “the extent of connectedness and solidarity among groups in society”. Four articles followed Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls’ [28] definition of social cohesion, which broadly views it as a combination of mutual trust and willingness to act for the common good. Furthermore, two articles used the definition of Chan, To, and Chan [45] who conceptualise social cohesion as “a set of attitudes and norms that includes trust, a sense of belonging and the willingness to participate and help” (p. 290). Four articles put forward their own definition of the concept.
To measure social cohesion, all but one study used statements about the neighbourhood to which participants had to state their level of agreement on an ordinal scale. A total of 75% of the studies employed or adapted already existing scales (n = 30). The most commonly used measurement tool, which was applied in 18 studies, was developed by Sampson, Raudenbush and Earls [28] and consists of five statements about the neighbourhood. It was followed by the social cohesion measure of Mujahid et al. [38], which features four statements and was used in five studies. Three studies used the items developed by Buckner et al. [35]. However, all of them employed a shorter version (5–8 items) of the original item list of 16 items. Two of the studies adapted the items themselves and one used the adapted version of the items of Buckner et al. [35] created by Seidman et al. [60]. Furthermore, two studies employed the social cohesion measurement tool of Friche et al. [23], consisting of six statements. The study of Pabayo, Janosz, Bisset and Kawachi used a 37-item tool previously developed by one of the authors and their colleagues to measure social cohesion at the school level [53]. The 6-item instrument used by Mendes de Leon et al. [48] was adapted from tools presented within three distinct papers. Furthermore, ten studies used self-designed measurements to examine social cohesion, with the number of items ranging from one to six. For two of the self-designed measures, only the number of items and an example were available, but not the complete list of items.
In summary, it seems to be common practice to use already existing measurement tools to assess social cohesion. Most papers used a relatively small number of statements (n < 9) to assess the social cohesion in the neighbourhood of participants. An overview of the measurement tools used and their social cohesion items (as far as available) can be found in Supplementary Table S1.

3.4. Dimensions of Social Cohesion

As most articles did not use a clear definition of social cohesion, the items of the measurement tools used in the studies are a good indicator for the understanding of social cohesion in the different articles. In general, the different statements about the neighbourhood used to assess social cohesion are often phrased similarly or go in the same direction.
As shown in Figure 2, the most frequently captured dimensions of social cohesion were social networks (n = 36), trust in people (n = 31) and solidarity and helpfulness (n = 31), all of which were addressed by more than 75% of the studies. They were followed by the dimension of shared values, which was included in 25 studies (62.5%). In contrast, all the other dimensions of social cohesion were not or only rarely part of the measurement instruments. Identification/belonging was captured in four studies and trust in institutions in three studies. The dimensions of civic participation and perception of fairness were each included in one study. Acceptance of diversity and respect for social rules were not addressed in any of the measures explicitly related to social cohesion.
Relatedly, many studies measure other potentially similar social constructs, though not necessarily under the banner of social cohesion. For instance, three studies separately measured social capital, while other constructs such as neighbourhood aesthetics, collective efficacy, and availability of sporting services also appeared. Perceived safety, in particular, was prominent in studies investigating physical activity behaviour, appearing in 15 studies.

4. Limitations

Before progressing to our discussion, there are a few caveats and limitations that should be acknowledged. First and foremost, as this review is structured as a scoping review, quality assessment and meta-analysis of results did not occur. Thus, although we do make general statements about the outcomes within the included papers, we cannot speak to the overall quality of the evidence. Although omitting these steps was in line with the goals of our study and chosen methodology, we suspect future work could benefit from taking such steps. Second, we limited our search to conventional databases and English language literature. This means that we may have missed relevant research in other languages or emanating from more inclusive databases such as the Directory of Open Access Journals, Scielo, or African Journals Online. However, these aforementioned databases do not yet possess the same level of data extraction tools, thus making them less user-friendly in the context of a large review. Finally, our research terms focused specifically on social cohesion, but there is a well-known overlap between social cohesion, social capital and social inclusion, and additional usage of these terms may have uncovered other relevant measurement tools and approaches.

5. Discussion

This review illustrates how a large portion of the research does not define or engage in depth with the concept of social cohesion, and instead primarily relies on already existing survey measurement tools to conduct their studies. In turn, this reliance on a narrow set of pre-designed tools feeds into measurements that focus predominantly on dimensions related to social relations such as social networks and trust. Although this intense focus on only a handful of dimensions presents issues, which we will discuss later, the retained studies generally support the contention that social cohesion is a driver of physical activity, with 67.5% of the studies finding a significant positive relationship. As noted previously, quality assessment and meta-analysis of these results would help further confirm and expand our understanding of this relationship. Beyond that, however, from a research and more applied standpoint, our review points to numerous trends and implications within this context.
The most striking finding is the limited engagement with social cohesion as a concept. Most articles do not define the term, and the associated measurement tools connected to social cohesion focus predominantly on social relations. To be fair, other constructs were measured in these various articles, such as collective efficacy, trust, or social capital, and these constructs are typically understood as sub-dimensions of social cohesion as well. Yet, as a whole, this shows that authors investigating the connections between sport, physical activity and social cohesion mostly engage with the concept at a surface level, and do not take into account other facets of social cohesion that may have an important influence on sport or physical activity behaviour. Research shows that other factors, such as tolerance or trust in public institutions, play important roles in promoting physical activity. For instance, factors such as gender or migration background may limit sport participation [74], while, in contrast, the quality of public offers and facilities can be important promoters of physical activity [75]. This suggests that researchers would do well to fully engage with the concept of social cohesion and include questions related to issues of acceptance of diversity or trust in institutions, as these reflect important dimensions of social cohesion associated with sport and physical activity participation. Potential survey items already exist for these areas as well. Chan et al. [45] provide sample questions for these dimensions of social cohesion, and these could be further adapted for the sport and community contexts under study. However, until the full, multi-dimensional nature of social cohesion is fully accounted for, the ability of these studies to translate into meaningful evidence-based interventions or policy will remain limited [11], as the predominant focus on social relations risks minimising the crucial role of socio-political factors.
On the flip side, although there are a growing number of programmes attempting to use sport to support social cohesion, this review confirms the paucity of studies actively attempting to quantitatively measure programme outcomes. A separate review found that, of 35 papers, only 4 were using quantitative measurements [5], one of which is included here [63]. The other three, however, used social network analysis [76], employed behavioural measures [77], or merely represented a research protocol without any results [78]. In the adjacent field of sport for development (SFD), there are extensive debates about the suitability of various qualitative and quantitative methods, as well as a recognition of the need to integrate participants and stakeholders into research processes. Indeed, we fully agree that participants and communities should be made co-equal stakeholders in research and that such participatory approaches can ensure that research is reflective of and responsive to the realities of specific communities. However, conducting surveys or statistical analyses does not preclude these participatory or more critical approaches [79]. Rather, we would suggest that there is a need for extensive qualitative research in this field to be further complemented by more extensive quantitative work to provide combined, deeper insights. In that sense, we echo Massey and Whitley [80], who suggest that “rather than lay blanket critiques across different research paradigms and epistemologies, there is a need to discuss higher levels of sophistication in both instrumental/positivist (i.e., quantitative) and descriptive/critical (i.e., qualitative)” (p. 177) settings.

6. Conclusions

In this scoping review of 40 papers measuring social cohesion in the context of sport and physical activity, we found general support for the argument that social cohesion is positively related to sport or physical activity participation. Almost no quantitative measurements were located demonstrating a relationship between sport or physical activity participation or interventions and enhanced social cohesion. Furthermore, the retained texts engaged on only a surface level with the concept of social cohesion, with around half not defining the term and the associated measurement tools using only a fraction of the dimensions typically associated with social cohesion. For us, this highlights a need to holistically engage with the term and its measurement in order to generate deeper insights into the intersections between sport and physical activity.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/sports11120231/s1, Table S1: Overview of measurement tools and their social cohesion items.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.M.; methodology, L.M.; formal analysis, L.M. and J.W.; investigation, L.M. and J.W.; resources, L.M.; data curation, L.M. and J.W.; writing—original draft preparation, L.M. and J.W.; writing—review and editing, L.M. and J.W.; visualization, L.M. and J.W.; supervision, L.M.; project administration, L.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Stigendal, M. Cities and Social Cohesion: Popularizing the Results of Social Polis; Mapius No. 6; Malmo University: Malmö, Sweden, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  2. Dayrit, M.M.; Mendoza, R.U. Social cohesion vs COVID-19. Int. J. Health Gov. 2020, 25, 191–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Razavi, S.; Behrendt, C.; Bierbaum, M.; Orton, I.; Tessier, L. Reinvigorating the social contract and strengthening social cohesion: Social protection responses to COVID-19. Int. Soc. Secur. Rev. 2020, 73, 55–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Moustakas, L. A Bibliometric Analysis of Research on Social Cohesion from 1994–2020. Publications 2022, 10, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Moustakas, L.; Robrade, D. Sport for Social Cohesion: From Scoping Review to New Research Directions. Sport Soc. 2023, 26, 1301–1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Açıkgöz, S.; Haudenhuyse, R.; Aşçı, H. Social inclusion for whom and towards what end? A critical discourse analysis of youth and sport policies in Turkey. J. Youth Stud. 2019, 22, 330–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Moustakas, L. Sport and social cohesion within European policy: A critical discourse analysis. Eur. J. Sport Soc. 2023, 20, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cradock, A.L.; Kawachi, I.; Colditz, G.A.; Gortmaker, S.L.; Buka, S.L. Neighborhood social cohesion and youth participation in physical activity in Chicago. Soc. Sci. Med. 2009, 68, 427–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Schiefer, D.; van der Noll, J. The Essentials of Social Cohesion: A Literature Review. Soc. Indic. Res. 2017, 132, 579–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Raw, K.; Sherry, E.; Rowe, K. Sport for social cohesion: Exploring aims and complexities. Sport Manag. Rev. 2021, 25, 454–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ahlborg, M.G.; Nyholm, M.; Nygren, J.M.; Svedberg, P. Current Conceptualization and Operationalization of Adolescents’ Social Capital: A Systematic Review of Self-Reported Instruments. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 15596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chuang, Y.-C.; Chuang, K.-Y.; Yang, T.-H. Social cohesion matters in health. Int. J. Equity Health 2013, 12, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Perspectives on Global Development 2012: Social Cohesion in a Shifting World; OECD: Paris, France, 2011; ISBN 9789264113145. [Google Scholar]
  14. Bernard, P. La cohésion sociale: Critique dialectique d’un quasi-concept. Lien Soc. Et Polit. 1999, 47–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Munn, Z.; Peters, M.D.J.; Stern, C.; Tufanaru, C.; McArthur, A.; Aromataris, E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2018, 18, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Arksey, H.; O’Malley, L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2005, 8, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kohl, C.; McIntosh, E.J.; Unger, S.; Haddaway, N.R.; Kecke, S.; Schiemann, J.; Wilhelm, R. Online tools supporting the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and systematic maps: A case study on CADIMA and review of existing tools. Env. Evid. 2018, 7, 8, Correction in Env. Evid. 2018, 7, 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-018-0124-4.. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dragolov, G.; Ignácz, Z.S.; Lorenz, J.; Delhey, J.; Boehnke, K. Social Cohesion Radar: An International Comparison of Social Cohesion; Bertelsmann Stiftung: Gütersloh, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  19. Dragolov, G.; Ignácz, Z.S.; Lorenz, J.; Delhey, J.; Boehnke, K.; Unzicker, K. Theoretical Framework of the Social Cohesion Radar. In Social Cohesion in the Western World; Dragolov, G., Ignácz, Z.S., Lorenz, J., Delhey, J., Boehnke, K., Unzicker, K., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 1–13. ISBN 978-3-319-32463-0. [Google Scholar]
  20. Delhey, J.; Boehnke, K.; Dragolov, G.; Ignácz, Z.S.; Larsen, M.; Lorenz, J.; Koch, M. Social Cohesion and Its Correlates: A Comparison of Western and Asian Societies. Comp. Sociol. 2018, 17, 426–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nowack, D.; Schoderer, S. The Role of Values for Social Cohesion: Theoretical Explication and Empirical Exploration; German Development Institute: Bonn, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  22. Rodrigues, D.E.; César, C.C.; Kawachi, I.; Xavier, C.C.; Caiaffa, W.T.; Proietti, F.A. The Influence of Neighborhood Social Capital on Leisure-Time Physical Activity: A Population-Based Study in Brazil. J. Urban Health 2018, 95, 727–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Friche, A.A.D.L.; Diez-Roux, A.V.; César, C.C.; Xavier, C.C.; Proietti, F.A.; Caiaffa, W.T. Assessing the psychometric and ecometric properties of neighborhood scales in developing countries: Saúde em Beagá Study, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 2008–2009. J. Urban Health 2013, 90, 246–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Andrade, A.C.d.S.; Peixoto, S.V.; Friche, A.A.d.L.; Goston, J.L.; César, C.C.; Xavier, C.C.; Proietti, F.A.; Diez Roux, A.V.; Caiaffa, W.T. Social context of neighborhood and socioeconomic status on leisure-time physical activity in a Brazilian urban center: The BH Health Study. Cad. Saude Publica 2015, 31 (Suppl. S1), 136–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Morata, T.; López, P.; Marzo, T.; Palasí, E. The influence of leisure-based community activities on neighbourhood support and the social cohesion of communities in Spain. Int. Soc. Work 2023, 66, 568–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Liu, Z.; Kemperman, A.; Timmermans, H. Social-ecological correlates of older adults’ outdoor activity patterns. J. Transp. Health 2020, 16, 100840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ball, K.; Cleland, V.J.; Timperio, A.F.; Salmon, J.; Giles-Corti, B.; Crawford, D.A. Love thy neighbour? Associations of social capital and crime with physical activity amongst women. Soc. Sci. Med. 2010, 71, 807–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Sampson, R.J.; Raudenbush, S.W.; Earls, F. Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 1997, 277, 918–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Kawachi, I.; Berkman, L.F. Social Capital, Social Cohesion, and Health. In Social Epidemiology; Berkman, L.F., Kawachi, I., Glymour, M.M., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2014; ISBN 9780195377903. [Google Scholar]
  30. Yuma-Guerrero, P.J.; Cubbin, C.; von Sternberg, K. Neighborhood Social Cohesion as a Mediator of Neighborhood Conditions on Mothers’ Engagement in Physical Activity: Results From the Geographic Research on Wellbeing Study. Health Educ. Behav. 2017, 44, 845–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Kiernan, M.; Schoffman, D.E.; Lee, K.; Brown, S.D.; Fair, J.M.; Perri, M.G.; Haskell, W.L. The Stanford Leisure-Time Activity Categorical Item (L-Cat): A single categorical item sensitive to physical activity changes in overweight/obese women. Int. J. Obes. 2013, 37, 1597–1602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sampson, R.J.; Morenoff, J.D.; Gannon-Rowley, T. Assessing “Neighborhood Effects”: Social Processes and New Directions in Research. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2002, 28, 443–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pebley, A.R.; Sastry, N. Neighborhoods, Poverty, and Children’s Well-Being. In Social inequality; Neckerman, K.M., Ed.; Russell Sage Foundation: New York, NY, USA, 2004; pp. 119–146. ISBN 978-0-87154-621-0. [Google Scholar]
  34. Rachele, J.N.; Ghani, F.; Loh, V.H.Y.; Brown, W.J.; Turrell, G. Associations between physical activity and the neighbourhood social environment: Baseline results from the HABITAT multilevel study. Prev. Med. 2016, 93, 219–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Buckner, J.C. The development of an instrument to measure neighborhood cohesion. Am. J. Comm. Psychol. 1988, 16, 771–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Beenackers, M.A.; Kamphuis, C.B.M.; Mackenbach, J.P.; Burdorf, A.; van Lenthe, F.J. Why some walk and others don’t: Exploring interactions of perceived safety and social neighborhood factors with psychosocial cognitions. Health Educ. Res. 2013, 28, 220–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gao, J.; Fu, H.; Li, J.; Jia, Y. Association between social and built environments and leisure-time physical activity among Chinese older adults--a multilevel analysis. BMC Public Health 2015, 15, 1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mujahid, M.S.; Diez Roux, A.V.; Morenoff, J.D.; Raghunathan, T.E.; Cooper, R.S.; Ni, H.; Shea, S. Neighborhood characteristics and hypertension. Epidemiology 2008, 19, 590–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. van Dyck, D.; Teychenne, M.; McNaughton, S.A.; de Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Salmon, J. Relationship of the perceived social and physical environment with mental health-related quality of life in middle-aged and older adults: Mediating effects of physical activity. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0120475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Joseph, R.P.; Vega-López, S.; Han, S. Physical Activity Patterns and Neighborhood Characteristics of First-Generation Latina Immigrants Living in Arizona: Cross-sectional Study. JMIR Form. Res. 2021, 5, e25663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Yi, S.S.; Kanaya, A.M.; Wen, M.; Russo, R.; Kandula, N. Associations of Neighborhood Factors and Activity Behaviors: The Mediators of Atherosclerosis in South Asians Living in America (MASALA) Study. J. Immigr. Minor. Health 2021, 23, 54–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. King, D. Neighborhood and individual factors in activity in older adults: Results from the neighborhood and senior health study. J. Aging Phys. Act. 2008, 16, 144–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Samuel, L.J.; Dennison Himmelfarb, C.R.; Szklo, M.; Seeman, T.E.; Echeverria, S.E.; Diez Roux, A.V. Social engagement and chronic disease risk behaviors: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Prev. Med. 2015, 71, 61–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Cho, D.; Nguyen, N.T.; Strong, L.L.; Wu, I.H.C.; John, J.C.; Escoto, K.H.; Wetter, D.W.; McNeill, L.H. Multiple Health Behaviors Engagement in an African American Cohort: Clustering Patterns and Correlates. Health Educ. Behav. 2019, 46, 506–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Chan, J.; To, H.-P.; Chan, E. Reconsidering Social Cohesion: Developing a Definition and Analytical Framework for Empirical Research. Soc. Indic. Res. 2006, 75, 273–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Suglia, S.F.; Shelton, R.C.; Hsiao, A.; Wang, Y.C.; Rundle, A.; Link, B.G. Why the Neighborhood Social Environment Is Critical in Obesity Prevention. J. Urban Health 2016, 93, 206–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Fisher, K.J.; Li, F.; Michael, Y.; Cleveland, M. Neighborhood-level influences on physical activity among older adults: A multilevel analysis. J. Aging Phys. Act. 2004, 12, 45–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mendes de Leon, C.F.; Cagney, K.A.; Bienias, J.L.; Barnes, L.L.; Skarupski, K.A.; Scherr, P.A.; Evans, D.A. Neighborhood social cohesion and disorder in relation to walking in community-dwelling older adults: A multilevel analysis. J. Aging Health 2009, 21, 155–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Balfour, J.L.; Kaplan, G.A. Neighborhood environment and loss of physical function in older adults: Evidence from the Alameda County Study. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2002, 155, 507–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Moreira, B.D.S.; Andrade, A.C.D.S.; Braga, L.D.S.; Bastone, A.D.C.; Torres, J.L.; Lima-Costa, M.F.F.; Caiaffa, W.T. Perceived Neighborhood and Walking Among Older Brazilian Adults Living in Urban Areas: A National Study (ELSI-Brazil). J. Aging Phys. Act. 2021, 29, 431–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Joseph, R.P.; Vega-López, S. Associations of perceived neighborhood environment and physical activity with metabolic syndrome among Mexican-Americans adults: A cross sectional examination. BMC Res. Notes 2020, 13, 306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Pabayo, R.; Janosz, M.; Bisset, S.; Kawachi, I. School social fragmentation, economic deprivation and social cohesion and adolescent physical inactivity: A longitudinal study. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e99154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Janosz, M.; Georges, P.; Parent, S. L’environnement socioéducatif à l’école secondaire: Un modèle théorique pour guider l’évaluation du milieu. Rev. Can. De Psycho-Ducation 1998, 27, 206–285. [Google Scholar]
  54. Baldwin, J.; Arundell, L.; Hnatiuk, J.A. Associations between the neighbourhood social environment and preschool children’s physical activity and screen time. BMC Public Health 2022, 22, 1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ganzar, L.A.; Salvo, D.; Burford, K.; Zhang, Y.; Kohl, H.W.; Hoelscher, D.M. Longitudinal changes in objectively-measured physical activity and sedentary time among school-age children in Central Texas, US during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2022, 19, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Yamamoto, M.; Jo, H. Perceived neighborhood walkability and physical exercise: An examination of casual communication in a social process. Health Place 2018, 51, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Sampson, R.J. Linking the Micro- and Macrolevel Dimensions of Community Social Organization. Social Forces 1991, 70, 43–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rosenblatt, A.M.; Crews, D.C.; Powe, N.R.; Zonderman, A.B.; Evans, M.K.; Tuot, D.S. Association between neighborhood social cohesion, awareness of chronic diseases, and participation in healthy behaviors in a community cohort. BMC Public Health 2021, 21, 1611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Perez, L.G.; Carlson, J.; Slymen, D.J.; Patrick, K.; Kerr, J.; Godbole, S.; Elder, J.P.; Ayala, G.X.; Arredondo, E.M. Does the social environment moderate associations of the built environment with Latinas’ objectively-measured neighborhood outdoor physical activity? Prev. Med. Rep. 2016, 4, 551–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Seidman, E.; Allen, L.; Aber, J.L.; Mitchell, C.; Feinman, J.; Yoshikawa, H.; Comtois, K.A.; Golz, J.; Miller, R.L.; Ortiz-Torres, B. Development and validation of adolescent-perceived microsystem scales: Social support, daily hassles, and involvement. Am. J. Comm. Psychol. 1995, 23, 355–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Dlugonski, D.; Das, B.M.; Martin, T.R.; Palmer, A. Collective Efficacy, Physical Activity, and Health Outcomes Among Mothers. Fam. Community Health 2017, 40, 316–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Pabayo, R.; Belsky, J.; Gauvin, L.; Curtis, S. Do area characteristics predict change in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity from ages 11 to 15 years? Soc. Sci. Med. 2011, 72, 430–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Grimminger-Seidensticker, E.; Möhwald, A. Enhancing social cohesion in PE classes within an intercultural learning program: Results of a quasi-experimental intervention study. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 2020, 25, 316–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Silfee, V.J.; Rosal, M.C.; Sreedhara, M.; Lora, V.; Lemon, S.C. Neighborhood environment correlates of physical activity and sedentary behavior among Latino adults in Massachusetts. BMC Public Health 2016, 16, 966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Echeverría, S.; Diez-Roux, A.V.; Shea, S.; Borrell, L.N.; Jackson, S. Associations of neighborhood problems and neighborhood social cohesion with mental health and health behaviors: The Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Health Place 2008, 14, 853–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Karusisi, N.; Bean, K.; Oppert, J.-M.; Pannier, B.; Chaix, B. Multiple dimensions of residential environments, neighborhood experiences, and jogging behavior in the RECORD Study. Prev. Med. 2012, 55, 50–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Aarts, M.-J.; Wendel-Vos, W.; van Oers, H.A.M.; van de Goor, I.A.M.; Schuit, A.J. Environmental determinants of outdoor play in children: A large-scale cross-sectional study. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2010, 39, 212–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. de Silva Weliange, S.H.; Fernando, D.; Gunatilake, J. Development and validation of a tool to assess the physical and social environment associated with physical activity among adults in Sri Lanka. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Michael, Y.L.; Carlson, N.E. Analysis of Individual Social-ecological Mediators and Moderators and Their Ability to Explain Effect of a Randomized Neighborhood Walking Intervention. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2009, 6, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Ghani, F.; Rachele, J.N.; Loh, V.H.; Washington, S.; Turrell, G. Do Differences in Social Environments Explain Gender Differences in Recreational Walking across Neighbourhoods? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Li, F.; Fisher, K.J. A Multilevel Path Analysis of the Relationship Between Physical Activity and Self-Rated Health in Older Adults. J. Phys. Act. Health 2004, 1, 398–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Muthuri, S.K.; Wachira, L.-J.; Onywera, V.O.; Tremblay, M.S. Associations Between Parental Perceptions of the Neighborhood Environment and Childhood Physical Activity: Results from ISCOLE-Kenya. J. Phys. Act. Health 2016, 13, 333–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Strong, L.L.; Reitzel, L.R.; Wetter, D.W.; McNeill, L.H. Associations of perceived neighborhood physical and social environments with physical activity and television viewing in African-American men and women. Am. J. Health Promot. 2013, 27, 401–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Nobis, T.; El-Kayed, N. Social inequality and sport in Germany—A multidimensional and intersectional perspective. Eur. J. Sport Soc. 2019, 16, 5–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Kamphuis, C.B.M.; van Lenthe, F.J.; Giskes, K.; Huisman, M.; Brug, J.; Mackenbach, J.P. Socioeconomic status, environmental and individual factors, and sports participation. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2008, 40, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Jaramillo, A.M.; Montes, F.; Sarmiento, O.L.; Ríos, A.P.; Rosas, L.G.; Hunter, R.F.; Rodríguez, A.L.; King, A.C. Social cohesion emerging from a community-based physical activity program: A temporal network analysis. Net. Sci. 2021, 9, 35–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Mousa, S. Building social cohesion between Christians and Muslims through soccer in post-ISIS Iraq. Science 2020, 369, 866–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Nathan, S.; Bunde-Birouste, A.; Evers, C.; Kemp, L.; MacKenzie, J.; Henley, R. Social cohesion through football: A quasi-experimental mixed methods design to evaluate a complex health promotion program. BMC Public Health 2010, 10, 587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Chilisa, B. Indigenous Research Methodologies, 2nd ed.; SAGE: Los Angeles, CA, USA; London, UK; New Delhi, India; Singapore; Washington, DC, USA; Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 2020; ISBN 9781483333472. [Google Scholar]
  80. Massey, W.V.; Whitley, M.A. SDP and research methods. In Routledge Handbook of Sport for Development and Peace; Collison, H., Darnell, S.C., Giulianotti, R., Howe, P.D., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 175–184. ISBN 9781315455174. [Google Scholar]
Sports 11 00231 g001
Figure 1. Prisma Flow Chart for Scoping Review.
Figure 1. Prisma Flow Chart for Scoping Review.
Sports 11 00231 g001
Sports 11 00231 g002
Figure 2. Dimensions of Social Cohesion captured by measurement tools within selected articles.
Figure 2. Dimensions of Social Cohesion captured by measurement tools within selected articles.
Sports 11 00231 g002
Table 1. Overview of search terms and databases.
Table 1. Overview of search terms and databases.
Search Terms(“sport” OR “physical activity” OR “leisure”) AND (“social cohesion”)
Search AreaTitle, Abstract, Key Word
Databases Web Of Science
Web of Science Core Collection
KCI-Korean Journal Database
MEDLINE
Russian Science Citation Index
SciELO Citation Index
EbscoHost
SportDiscus
Sociology Source Ultimate
PSYINDEX
Table 2. Summary of inclusion/exclusion criteria.
Table 2. Summary of inclusion/exclusion criteria.
InclusionExclusion
TopicTexts quantitatively measuring social cohesion (i.e., via a questionnaire/survey) in connection with sport or physical activity participation or programmes.
The relationship explored can be in either direction. Namely, studies can explore how social cohesion mediates sport/PA participation or look at how active participation in sport/PA influences social cohesion. 		Texts measuring social cohesion outside of sport or physical activity contexts (e.g., mobility, nutrition, sedentary behaviour).
Texts measuring similar but distinct concepts like social capital, team or group cohesion.
Texts measuring social cohesion through secondary data (e.g., World Values Survey, Eurobarometer)
Population/Target GroupTarget groups of all ages and backgrounds None
Design/FormQuantitative studiesMeta-analyses
Systematic Reviews
Conceptual or theoretical papers
Position papers or editorials
Publication TypePeer-reviewed journal articles
Books
Book chapters
Theses/Dissertations		Grey Literature
Proceedings
Abstracts
LanguageEnglishDocuments not in English
Geographic ScopeWorldwideNone
Timeframe1994–2022Documents outside of the defined range
Table 3. Dimensions and sub-dimensions of social cohesion. Adapted with permission from [18].
Table 3. Dimensions and sub-dimensions of social cohesion. Adapted with permission from [18].
DimensionSub DimensionDescription
Social relationsSocial networksStrong, resilient social networks.
Trust in peopleHigh level of trust in other individuals.
Acceptance of diversityAccept individuals with different backgrounds and lifestyles as equal members of society.
ConnectednessIdentificationIndividuals feel strongly connected with their geographic area and identify with it.
Trust in institutionsIndividuals have a high level of confidence in political institutions.
Perception of fairnessIndividuals believe that they are being treated fairly in society.
Focus on the common goodSolidarity and helpfulnessIndividuals feel a responsibility for and willingness to help others.
Respect for social rulesIndividuals respect the fundamental rules of society.
Civic participationIndividuals participate in society and civic and political life.
Table 4. Overview of included texts.
Table 4. Overview of included texts.
Bibliographic InformationStudy Design and Methods
ReferenceAuthor(s)Year (First Published)JournalCountry of StudyStudy DesignSample SizeAverage AgeSample % FemaleMeasurement Instrument (PA)Measurement Instrument (SoCo)Definition Social Cohesion
[22]Rodrigues, D.E.; César, C.C.; Kawachi, I.; Xavier, C.C.; Caiaffa, W.T. and Proietti, F.A.2018Journal of Urban HealthBrazilCross-sectional survey36674159%Leisure-time section of the long version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ)Based on Friche et al., 2012 [23]No definition
[24]Viana Peixoto, S.; Augusta de Lima Friche, A.; Lavalli Goston, J.; Comini César, C.; Coelho Xavier, C.; Augusto Proietti, F.; Diez Roux, A.V. and Teixeira Caiaffa, W.2015Cadernos de Saúde Pública/Reports in Public HealthBrazilCross-sectional survey3597 4153.10%Leisure-time section of the long version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ)Based on Friche et al., 2012 [23]No definition
[25]Morata, T; López, P.; Marzo, T. and Palasí, E.2021International Social WorkSpainCross-sectional survey203n.a.52.04%Self-designed questionnaire: Leisure-based Community Activities and Social Cohesion (LCSC)Self-designed questionnaire: Leisure-based Community Activities and Social Cohesion (LCSC)Perception that the neighbourhood is a safe and cohesive environment. No citation provided
[26]Liu, Z.; Kempermann, A. and Timmermans, H.2020Journal of Transport & HealthChinaCross-sectional survey363n.a.52.30%Self-designed questionnaire Self-designed questionnaireNo definition
[27]Ball, K.; Cleland, V.J.; Timperio, A.F.; Salmon, J.; Giiles-Corti, B. and Crawford, D.A.2010Social Science and MedicineAustraliaCross-sectional survey1405n.a.100%Long version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) and self-reported walkingBased on Sampson et al., 1997 [28]No definition
[8]Cradock, A.L,; Kawachi, I.; Colditz, G.A.; Gotmaker, S.L and Buka, S.L.2008Social Science and MedicineUSALongitudinal interviews 680n.a.48.68%Self-designed questionnaireBased on Sampson et al., 1997 [28]Kawachi and Berkman, 2000 [29]
[30]Yuma-Guerrero, P.J.; Cubbin, C. and von Sternberg, K.2017Health Education & BehaviorUSACross-sectional survey2750n.a.100% Based on Kiernan et al., 2013 [31], only one questionSelf-designed questionnaireKawachi and Berkman, 2000 [29]; Pebley and Sastry, 2004; Sampson et al., 2002 [32,33]
[34]Rachele, J.N.; Ghani, F.; Loh, V.H.Y.; Brown, W.J. and Turrell, G.2016Preventive MedicineAustraliaCross-sectional survey10421 (5189 used as cases, 5232 as informants about area)n.a.55.20%Based on Active Australia SurveyBased on Buckner et al., 1988 [35]Social cohesion is a measure of social capital. No citation provided
[36]Beenackers, M.A.; Kamphuis, C.B.M.; Mackenback, J.P.; Burdorf, A. and van Lenthe, F.J.2013Health Education ResearchNetherlandsCross-sectional survey4395n.a.53.30%Based on Dutch SQUASH questionnaireSelf-designed questionnaireKawachi and Berkman, 2000 [29]
[37]Gao, J.; Hua, F.; Li, J. and Jia, Y.2015BMC Public HealthChinaCross-sectional survey2783n.a.58.90%Based on Chinese Version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ)Based on Mujahid et al., 2007 [38]No definition
[39]Van Dyck, D.; Teychenne, M.; McNaughton, S.A. and De Bourdeudhuij, I.2015PLoS ONEAustraliaCross-sectional survey3965n.a.52.30%Based on long version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ)Based on Sampson et al., 1997 [28]No definition
[40]Joseph, R.P.; Vega-Lopez, S. and Han, S.2021JMIR Formative ResearchUSACross-sectional survey3940.5100%Based on long version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ)Based on Mujahid et al., 2007 [38]No definition
[41]Yi, S.S.; Kanaya, A.M.; Wen, M.; Russo, R. and Kandula, N.2021Journal of Immigrant and Minority HealthUSACross-sectional survey90355.346.40%Based on the Cross-Cultural Activity Participation StudyBased on Sampson et al., 1997 [28]Neighbourhood social cohesion refers to the perceived network of relationships, shared values and norms of a neighbourhood. No citation provided
[42]King, D.2008Journal of Aging and Physical ActivityUSACross-sectional survey19074.257%Based on Community Health Activities Model Program for Seniors (CHAMPS)Based on Sampson et al., 1997 [28]Sampson et al., 1997 [28]
[43]Samuel, L.J.; Dennison Himmelfarb, C.R.; Szklo, M.; Seeman, T.E.; Echeverria, S.E. and Diez Roux, A.V.2014Preventive MedicineUSACross-sectional survey538161.3552.80%Based on previous tool, which defined metabolic equivalent level of activityBased on Sampson et al., 1997 [28]Kawachi and Berkman, 2000 [29]
[44]Cho, D.; Nguyen, N.T.; Strong, L.L.; Wu, I.; John, J.C.; Escoto, K.H.; Wetter, D.W. and McNeill, L.H.2019Health Education & BehaviorUSACross-sectional survey and health assessment146745.1974.64%Based on the six-item International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ)Self-designed questionnaireSuglia et al., 2016
Chan, To and Chan, 2006 [45,46]
[47]Fisher, K.J.; Li, F.; Michael, Y. and Cleveland, M.2004Journal of Aging and Physical ActivityUSACross-sectional survey and census data58273.9968.60%Self-designed questionnaireBased on Sampson et al., 1997 [28]Social cohesion is one of several other linked subconcepts generating social
capital accumulation in a community. No citation provided
[48]Mendes de Leon, C.F.; Cagney, K.A.; Bienias, J.L.; Barnes, L.L.; Skarupski, K.A.; Scherr, P.A. and Evans, D.A.2009Journal of Aging and HealthUSALongitudinal survey431774.561%Based on the 1985 Health Interview SurveyAdapted from Balfour and Kaplan, 2002; Fisher et al., 2004; Sampson et al. 2002 [47,49]Sampson et al., 1997 [28]
[50]de Souza Moreira, B.; de Souza Andrade, A.C.; de Souza Braga, L.; de Carvalho Bastone A.; Lustosa Torres, J.; Furtado Lima-Costa, M.F. and Teixeira Caiaffa W.2021Journal of Aging and Physical ActivityBrazilCross-sectional survey4027n.a.59.70%Based on the six-item International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ)Self-designed questionnaireNo definition
[51]Jospeh, R.P. and Vega-Lopez, S.2020BMC Research NotesUSACross-sectional survey7537.665.30%Based on Rapid Physical Activity Questionnaire (RAPA)Based on Mujahid et al., 2007 [38]No definition
[52]Pabayo, R.; Janosz, M.; Bisset, S. and Kawachi, I.2014PLoS ONECanadaLongitudinal survey 14924n.a.54.80%Self-designed questionnaireBased on Janosz et al., 1998 [53]No definition
[54]Baldwin, J.; Arundell, L. and Hnatiuk, J.A.2022BMC Public HealthAustraliaCross-sectional survey2143.842.30%Based on the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Census of Population and Housing, 2016 Based on Sampson et al., 1997 [28]No definition
[55]Ganzar, L.A.; Salvo, D.; Burford, K.; Zhang, Y.; Kohl, H.W. and Hoelscher, D.M.2022International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical ActivityUSALongitudinal survey1688.956%Self-designed questionnaireBased on Sampson et al., 1997 [28]No definition
[56]Yamamoto, M. and Jo, Hyerim2018Health & PlaceUSACross-sectional survey4914051.50%Self-designed questionnaireBased on Sampson et al., 1997 [28]Sampson, 1991; Sampson et al., 1997 [28,57]
[58]Rosenblatt, A.M.; Crews, D.C.; Powe, N.R.; Zonderman, A.B.; Evans, M.K. and Tuot, D.S.2021BMC Public HealthUSACross-sectional survey208256.559.10%Based on Baecke et al., 1982 physical activity questionnaireBased on Sampson et al., 1997 [28]No definition
[59]Perez, L.G., Carlson, J.; Slymen, D.J.; Patrick, K.; Kerr, J.; Godbole, S.; Elder, J.P.; Ayala, G.X. and Arrredono, E.M.2016Preventive Medicine ReportsUSACross-sectional survey and anthropometric measurements8645.4100%Accelerometer and GPS device for 7 daysBased on Seidman et al., 1995 [60]No definition
[61]Dlugonski, D.; Das, B.M.; Martin, T. and Palmer, A.2017Family and Community HealthUSACross-sectional survey and anthropometric measurements8639.2100%Wearable activity monitorBased on Sampson et al., 1997 [28]No definition
[62]Pabayo, R.; Belsky, J.; Gauvin, L.; Curtis, S.2011Social Science and MedicineUSALongitudinal survey 889n.a.49.9%AccelerometerSelf-designed questionnaireKawachi and Berkman, 2000 [29]
[52]Pabayo, R.; Molnar, B.E.; Cradock, A. and Kawachi, MD2014American Journal of Public HealthUSACross-sectional survey136416.356.1%Based on the Youth Behavior Surveillance SystemBased on Sampson et al., 1997 [28]Kawachi and Berkman, 2000 [29]
[63]Grimminger-Seidensticker, E. and Möhwald, A.2020Physical Education and Sport PedagogyGermanyLongitudinal survey, quasi-experimental 22710.8–11.643.36%Not measuredSelf-designed questionnaireNo definition
[64]Silfee, V.J.; Rosal, M.C.; Sreedhara, M.; Lora, V. and Lemon, S.C.2016BMC Public HealthUSACross-sectional verbal assessment60246.6451.2%Based on Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) Brief Physical Activity QuestionnaireBased on Mujahid et al., 2007 [38]No definition
[65]Echeverria, S.; DIez-Roux, A.; Shea, S.; Borrell, L. and Jackson, S.2008Health & PlaceUSACross-sectional survey594361.852.0%Self-designed questionnaire Based on Sampson et al., 1997 [28]Sampson et al., 1997 [28]
[66]Karusisi, N.; Bean, K.; Oppert, J.-M.; Pannier, B. and Chaix, B.2012Preventive MedicineFranceCross-sectional7290n.a.n.a.Self-designed questionnaireBased on Mujahid et al., 2007 [38]No definition
[67]Aarts, M.-J.; Wendel-Vos, W.; van Oers, H.A.M.; van de Goor, I.A.M. and Schuit, A.J.2010American Journal of Preventive MedicineThe NetherlandsCross-sectional survey64707.849.88%Self-designed questionnaireSelf-designed questionnaireNo definition
[68]De Silva Weliange, S.H.; Fernando, D.; and Gunatilake, J.2014BMC Public HealthSri LankaCross-sectional survey 180n.a.57.20%Not measuredSelf-designed questionnaireNo definition
[69]Michael, Y.L. and Carlson, N.E.2009International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical ActivityUSALongitudinal survey, experimental5827476.5% (intervention), 64.9% (control)Based on Yale Physical Activity Scale (YPAS)Based on Sampson et al., 1997 [28]No definition
[70]Ghani, F.; Rachele, J.N.; Loh, V.H..; Washington, S. and Turrell, G.2019International Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthAustraliaCross-sectional survey 6643n.a.57.2%Based on the Active Australia SurveyBased on Buckner, 1998 [35]No definition
[71]Li, F. and Fisher, K.J.2004Journal of Physical Activity and HealthUSACross-sectional personal interview survey58273.9968.6%Self-designed questionnaireBased on Sampson et al., 1997 [28]No definition
[72]Muthuri, S.K.; Wachira, L.-J.; Onywera, V.O. and Tremblay, M.S.2016Journal of Physical Activity and HealthKenyaCross-sectional survey and anthropometric measurement5639–11.953.5%Based on the United States Youth Risk Behaviour Surveillance SystemBased on Sampson et al., 1997 [28]No definition
[73]Strong, L.L.; Reitzel, L.R.; Wetter, D.W. and McNeill, L.H.2013American Journal of Health PromotionUSACross-sectional survey137445.174.6%Based on the six-item International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ)Based on Sampson et al., 1997 [28]Kawachi and Berkman, 2000 [29]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Moustakas, L.; Wagner, J. Conceptualisation and Measurement of Social Cohesion within the Sport and Physical Activity Context: A Scoping Review. Sports 2023, 11, 231. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports11120231

AMA Style

Moustakas L, Wagner J. Conceptualisation and Measurement of Social Cohesion within the Sport and Physical Activity Context: A Scoping Review. Sports. 2023; 11(12):231. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports11120231

Chicago/Turabian Style

Moustakas, Louis, and Jule Wagner. 2023. "Conceptualisation and Measurement of Social Cohesion within the Sport and Physical Activity Context: A Scoping Review" Sports 11, no. 12: 231. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports11120231

APA Style

Moustakas, L., & Wagner, J. (2023). Conceptualisation and Measurement of Social Cohesion within the Sport and Physical Activity Context: A Scoping Review. Sports, 11(12), 231. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports11120231

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop