Applications of the multi-process action control framework in physical activity promotion: a scoping review

The “intention-behavior gap” represents a core bottleneck in the failure of health behavior interventions, with traditional theories offering insufficient explanations for the dynamic mechanisms from intention formation to behavior maintenance. The Multi-Process Action Control (M-PAC) framework provides a meta-theoretical perspective for systematically addressing this challenge by integrating three progressive processes: reflective, regulatory, and reflexive. However, the overall application landscape of this framework in physical activity promotion remains unclear. This scoping review aims to systematically map the application patterns, measurement tool characteristics, and empirical outcomes of the Multi-Process Action Control (M-PAC) framework in physical activity promotion. Specifically, this review seeks to: (1) identify measurement tools for variables corresponding to M-PAC theory; and (2) map the types of populations currently served by M-PAC, along with its application patterns and outcomes. Based on the synthesized evidence, we further analyze how the three core M-PAC processes—reflective, regulatory, and reflexive—are differentially prioritized across populations and intervention contexts, thereby informing future intervention design. Following Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review methodology framework, this review was conducted according to the PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines. As of January 10, 2026, eight databases—PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP, and the China Biomedical Literature Database—were systematically searched. Extracted research data underwent descriptive statistical analysis and thematic synthesis. Initial screening yielded 641 documents, with 42 publications meeting inclusion criteria after screening. Application of the M-PAC framework was highly concentrated in the physical activity domain (95.24%), primarily conducted in Canada (71.43%), and targeted core populations including chronic disease patients, healthy adults, children or adolescents, and families. The available evidence suggests that M-PAC applications vary according to population characteristics, targeted processes, and intervention delivery modes. However, evidence regarding intervention effectiveness remains preliminary and heterogeneous. Reflexive processes, commonly assessed through habit automaticity and identity, were frequently associated with maintenance outcomes, although causal evidence remains limited. Current research limitations include insufficient focus on reflexive processes in intervention design, uneven geographical distribution, and scarcity of long-term follow-up evidence. Within an evidence base dominated by physical activity studies conducted in Canada, the M-PAC framework provides a useful structure for organising hypothesised mechanisms of intention formation, behavioural enactment, and maintenance. The current findings support a provisional population–process–delivery mode heuristic rather than a validated intervention algorithm. Future research should prospectively test these propositions, establish cross-cultural measurement validity, evaluate longer-term outcomes, and develop behaviour-specific adaptations before extending conclusions beyond physical activity.