Peter Gelius1, Sven Messing2, Sarah Forberger3, Jeroen Lakerveld4, Fiona Mansergh5, Wanda Wendel-Vos6, Joanna Zukowska7, Catherine Woods8. 1. Department of Sport Science and Sport, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany. peter.gelius@fau.de. 2. Department of Sport Science and Sport, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany. 3. Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS, Bremen, Germany. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Data Science, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Health, Healthy Ireland, Dublin, Ireland. 6. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. 7. Gdansk University of Technology, Gdańsk, Poland. 8. Physical Activity for Health Research Cluster, Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Public policy is increasingly recognized as an important component of physical activity promotion. This paper reports on the current status of physical activity policy development and implementation in four European countries based on the Health-Enhancing Physical Activity Policy Audit Tool (HEPA PAT) developed by WHO. It compares the findings to previous studies and discusses the general utility of this tool and its unique features in relation to other instruments. METHODS: The study was conducted as part of the Policy Evaluation Network ( www.jpi-pen.eu ) in Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and Poland. Data collection built upon information obtained via the EU Physical Activity Monitoring Framework survey, additional desk research and expert opinion. Data analysis employed Howlett's policy cycle framework to map and compare national physical activity policies in the four countries. RESULTS: In all countries under study, policy agenda-setting is influenced by prevalence data from national health monitoring systems, and the sport and/or health sector takes the lead in policy formulation. Key policy documents were located mainly in the health sector but also in sport, urban design and transport. Physical activity programmes implemented to meet policy objectives usually cover a broad range of target groups, but currently only a small selection of major policies are evaluated for effectiveness. National experts made several suggestions to other countries wishing to establish physical activity policies, e.g. regarding cross-sectoral support and coordination, comprehensive national action plans, and monitoring/surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a detailed overview of physical activity policies in the four countries. Results show that national governments are already very active in the field but that there is room for improvement in a number of areas, e.g. regarding the contribution of sectors beyond sport and health. Using the HEPA PAT simultaneously in four countries also showed that procedures and timelines have to be adapted to national contexts. Overall, the instrument can make an important contribution to understanding and informing physical activity policy, especially when used as an add-on to regular monitoring tools like the EU HEPA Monitoring Framework.
BACKGROUND: Public policy is increasingly recognized as an important component of physical activity promotion. This paper reports on the current status of physical activity policy development and implementation in four European countries based on the Health-Enhancing Physical Activity Policy Audit Tool (HEPA PAT) developed by WHO. It compares the findings to previous studies and discusses the general utility of this tool and its unique features in relation to other instruments. METHODS: The study was conducted as part of the Policy Evaluation Network ( www.jpi-pen.eu ) in Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and Poland. Data collection built upon information obtained via the EU Physical Activity Monitoring Framework survey, additional desk research and expert opinion. Data analysis employed Howlett's policy cycle framework to map and compare national physical activity policies in the four countries. RESULTS: In all countries under study, policy agenda-setting is influenced by prevalence data from national health monitoring systems, and the sport and/or health sector takes the lead in policy formulation. Key policy documents were located mainly in the health sector but also in sport, urban design and transport. Physical activity programmes implemented to meet policy objectives usually cover a broad range of target groups, but currently only a small selection of major policies are evaluated for effectiveness. National experts made several suggestions to other countries wishing to establish physical activity policies, e.g. regarding cross-sectoral support and coordination, comprehensive national action plans, and monitoring/surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a detailed overview of physical activity policies in the four countries. Results show that national governments are already very active in the field but that there is room for improvement in a number of areas, e.g. regarding the contribution of sectors beyond sport and health. Using the HEPA PAT simultaneously in four countries also showed that procedures and timelines have to be adapted to national contexts. Overall, the instrument can make an important contribution to understanding and informing physical activity policy, especially when used as an add-on to regular monitoring tools like the EU HEPA Monitoring Framework.
Authors: Fiona Bull; Karen Milton; Sonja Kahlmeier; Alberto Arlotti; Andrea Backović Juričan; Olov Belander; Brian Martin; Eva Martin-Diener; Ana Marques; Jorge Mota; Tommi Vasankari; Anita Vlasveld Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: I-Min Lee; Eric J Shiroma; Felipe Lobelo; Pekka Puska; Steven N Blair; Peter T Katzmarzyk Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-07-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Bojana Klepac Pogrmilovic; Grant O'Sullivan; Karen Milton; Stuart J H Biddle; Adrian Bauman; William Bellew; Nick Cavill; Sonja Kahlmeier; Michael P Kelly; Nanette Mutrie; Michael Pratt; Harry Rutter; Andrea Ramirez Varela; Catherine Woods; Zeljko Pedisic Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2019-08-02 Impact factor: 6.457
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: Antoine Noël Racine; Jean-Marie Garbarino; Bernard Massiera; Anne Vuillemin Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-22 Impact factor: 3.390