Fiona Bull1, Karen Milton2, Sonja Kahlmeier3, Alberto Arlotti4, Andrea Backović Juričan5, Olov Belander6, Brian Martin3, Eva Martin-Diener3, Ana Marques7, Jorge Mota7, Tommi Vasankari8, Anita Vlasveld9. 1. Centre for the Built Environment and Health, School of Population Health, The University of Western Australia, Crawley. 2. School of Sport and Exercise Science, Loughborough University, London, UK. 3. Physical Activity and Health, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Physical Activity Promotion Consultancy at Regione Emilia-Romagna, Bologna, Italy. 5. National Institute of Public Health, Ljubljana, Slovenia. 6. Norwegian Directorate of Health, Oslo, Norway. 7. Physical Activity Research Group, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal. 8. UKK Institute of Health Promotion Research, Tampere, Finland. 9. Netherlands Institute for Sport and Physical Activity, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity is one of the four leading behavioural risk factors for non-communicable disease (NCD). Like tobacco control, increasing levels of health-enhancing physical activity (HEPA) will require a national policy framework providing direction and a clear set of actions. Despite frequent calls, there has been insufficient progress on policy development in the majority of countries around the world. This study sought and summarised national HEPA policy in seven European countries (Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia and Switzerland). METHODS: Data collection used a policy audit tool (PAT), a 27-item instrument structured into four sections. RESULTS: All countries reported some legislation or policy across the sectors of education, sport and health. Only some countries reported supportive policy in the transport and environment sectors. Five countries reported a stand-alone HEPA policy and six countries reported national recommendations. HEPA prevalence targets varied in magnitude and specificity and the presence of other relevant goals from different sectors highlighted the opportunity for joint action. Evaluation and the use of scientific evidence were endorsed but described as weak in practice. Only two countries reported a national multisector coordinating committee and most countries reported challenges with partnerships on different levels of policy implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Bringing together the key components for success within a national HEPA policy framework is not simple. This in-depth policy audit and country comparison highlighted similarities and differences and revealed new opportunities for consideration by other countries. These examples can inform countries within and beyond Europe and guide the development of national HEPA policy within the NCD prevention agenda. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity is one of the four leading behavioural risk factors for non-communicable disease (NCD). Like tobacco control, increasing levels of health-enhancing physical activity (HEPA) will require a national policy framework providing direction and a clear set of actions. Despite frequent calls, there has been insufficient progress on policy development in the majority of countries around the world. This study sought and summarised national HEPA policy in seven European countries (Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia and Switzerland). METHODS: Data collection used a policy audit tool (PAT), a 27-item instrument structured into four sections. RESULTS: All countries reported some legislation or policy across the sectors of education, sport and health. Only some countries reported supportive policy in the transport and environment sectors. Five countries reported a stand-alone HEPA policy and six countries reported national recommendations. HEPA prevalence targets varied in magnitude and specificity and the presence of other relevant goals from different sectors highlighted the opportunity for joint action. Evaluation and the use of scientific evidence were endorsed but described as weak in practice. Only two countries reported a national multisector coordinating committee and most countries reported challenges with partnerships on different levels of policy implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Bringing together the key components for success within a national HEPA policy framework is not simple. This in-depth policy audit and country comparison highlighted similarities and differences and revealed new opportunities for consideration by other countries. These examples can inform countries within and beyond Europe and guide the development of national HEPA policy within the NCD prevention agenda. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Children's health and exercise; Epidemiology; Health promotion through physical activity; Physical activity promotion in primary care
Authors: Aleksandra Romanowska; Agnieszka Morawiak; Catherine Woods; Liam Kelly; Kevin Volf; Peter Gelius; Sven Messing; Sarah Forberger; Jeroen Lakerveld; Nicolette R Den Braver; Enrique García Bengoechea; Joanna Żukowska Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-14 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Riitta-Maija Hämäläinen; Arja R Aro; Cathrine Juel Lau; Diana Rus; Liliana Cori; Ahmed M Syed Journal: Health Res Policy Syst Date: 2016-04-29
Authors: Alfred Rütten; Diana Schow; João Breda; Gauden Galea; Sonja Kahlmeier; Jean-Michel Oppert; Hidde van der Ploeg; Willem van Mechelen Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2016-04-26 Impact factor: 3.380