Striving for Global Consensus: A Systematic Review of Social Return on Investment Applied to Physical Activity and Sport

Nieto, Inés ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8902-3791, Mayo, Xián ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4143-701X, Davies, Larissa ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0591-7507, Reece, Lindsey ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2883-3963, Strafford, Ben ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4506-9370 and Jimenez, Alfonso ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5295-9668 (2024) Striving for Global Consensus: A Systematic Review of Social Return on Investment Applied to Physical Activity and Sport. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 21 (12). pp. 1246-1262. ISSN 1543-3080

Preview

Accepted Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (383kB) | Preview

Abstract

Background: Physical activity and sport (PAS) have been related to health and social benefits, but their monetary value remains unclear. This systematic review on the social return on investment of PAS aimed to find what are the social outcomes measured in previous PAS literature and how are these measured and valued. Methods: A systematic search was conducted on WoS, PubMed, and EconLit. Articles in English, measuring the social value of any type of PAS in monetary terms and utilizing a social return on investment framework, were included. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Drummond checklist. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. Results: Fifty-five documents (2010–2022), from all continents except America, were included; only 8 were published in peer-reviewed journals, whereas 47 were reports. Most studies evaluated the benefits of specific programs, and 6 measured the engagement in PAS at the population level based on national or community surveys. The social outcomes identified were health (94.5%), crime (50.9%), education (83.6%), subjective well-being (89.1%), social capital (60%), and other (3.6%–23.6%). The valuation methods included willingness to pay, well-being valuation, the cost of an activity that could result in the same outcome, and cost databases associating outcomes with a monetary value. Conclusions: This study updates a previous review and widens the scope by answering the question of how social outcomes are measured and valued in previous PAS literature. Given the heterogeneity found in the application of the method, this review will inform a Delphi study to reach a Global Consensus Statement on the measurement of social value and PAS.