The added value of using the HEPA PAT for physical activity policy monitoring: a four-country comparison.

Germany HEPA PAT Ireland Monitoring Netherlands Physical activity Poland Policy

Journal

Health research policy and systems
ISSN: 1478-4505
Titre abrégé: Health Res Policy Syst
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101170481

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
15 Feb 2021
Historique:
received: 10 06 2020
accepted: 19 01 2021
entrez: 16 2 2021
pubmed: 17 2 2021
medline: 29 7 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

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. 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. 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. 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.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND 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 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 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 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.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33588865
doi: 10.1186/s12961-021-00681-6
pii: 10.1186/s12961-021-00681-6
pmc: PMC7885477
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

22

Références

Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2019 Aug 2;16(1):60
pubmed: 31375132
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Oct 29;15(11):
pubmed: 30380619
Health Res Policy Syst. 2014 Sep 23;12:55
pubmed: 25248956
Lancet. 2012 Jul 21;380(9838):219-29
pubmed: 22818936
Psychol Health. 2017 Aug;32(8):942-975
pubmed: 28554222
J Phys Act Health. 2010 Nov;7 Suppl 3:S370-85
pubmed: 21116016
Health Policy. 2018 May;122(5):519-527
pubmed: 29422372
Br J Sports Med. 2015 Jun;49(11):749-56
pubmed: 24682248
J Phys Act Health. 2014 Feb;11(2):233-40
pubmed: 23364305
Soc Sci Med. 2014 May;108:46-53
pubmed: 24608119
Cardiovasc Drugs Ther. 2020 Feb;34(1):133-137
pubmed: 32034645

Auteurs

Peter Gelius (P)

Department of Sport Science and Sport, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany. peter.gelius@fau.de.

Sven Messing (S)

Department of Sport Science and Sport, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.

Sarah Forberger (S)

Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS, Bremen, Germany.

Jeroen Lakerveld (J)

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.

Fiona Mansergh (F)

Department of Health, Healthy Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.

Wanda Wendel-Vos (W)

National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.

Joanna Zukowska (J)

Gdansk University of Technology, Gdańsk, Poland.

Catherine Woods (C)

Physical Activity for Health Research Cluster, Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH