Correction to: BMC Public Health 20, 1312 (2020)

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09386-x

It was highlighted that the original article [1] contained an error in Table 3. Also, two previous studies (Kamada et al. 2013, Kamada et al. 2015) were mentioned in the Discussion section but were missing from the reference list. This Correction article shows the correct Table 3 and the incorrect and correct citations.

Table 3 Assessing the use of the seven reference criteria of social marketing and the observed impact on the increase in physical activity
Full size table

Incorrect:

Abstract: “None of the nine studies selected for this systematic review implemented the entire social marketing approach.”

Results: Competition “Four interventions...”

Table 3: (Kamada et al. 2018: Competition: No)

Discussion: “It is difficult to say whether social marketing is useful in promoting PA among seniors since none of the nine interventions selected used the entire approach (i.e., all seven benchmark criteria).”

Correct:

Abstract: “Only one of the nine studies selected for this systematic review implemented the entire social marketing approach”

Results: Competition: Five interventions identified a facility that competed with their program.

Table 3: Kamada et al. 2018: Competition: Yes

Beyond effective social marketing programs, one failed. Kamada et al. [2, 3] state that their program did not succeed in demonstrating an increase in PA levels at 1 and 3 years because it was not comprehensive enough.

Discussion: “It is difficult to say whether social marketing is useful in promoting PA among seniors since only one of the nine interventions selected used the entire approach (i.e., all seven benchmark criteria).”