What we know about the actual implementation process of public physical activity policies: results from a scoping review.


Journal

European journal of public health
ISSN: 1464-360X
Titre abrégé: Eur J Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9204966

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
28 11 2022
Historique:
entrez: 29 11 2022
pubmed: 30 11 2022
medline: 1 12 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Physical inactivity rates have remained high worldwide since 2001. Public policies are an essential upstream lever to target individual physical activity (PA) behaviour. However, implementers have different strategies and face implementation challenges that are poorly understood. The present study analyzes the implementation processes of public policies to promote PA in terms of: (i) the policies covered and their legal quality, (ii) the actors and stakeholders involved in the implementation process and (iii) the used implementation strategies (vertical, horizontal or a mix). A scoping review was systematically conducted (registered Open Science Framework: osf.io/7w84q/), searching 10 databases and grey literature until March 2022. Of the 7741 titles and abstracts identified initially, 10 studies were included. The current evidence includes high-income countries (USA, n = 7; UK, New Zealand and Oman, n = 1 each). Policy areas covered are education (school sector) and PA promotion in general (national PA plans or city-wide approaches). The legal classification ranges from laws (school sector) to coordination and budgeting to non-legally binding recommendations. The jurisdictions covered were federal (n = 4), state (n = 1), county (n = 1), school district (n = 1) and city (n = 3). Implementation strategies for city-wide approaches are characterized by a coordinated approach with vertical and horizontal integration; federal PA policies by a mix of implementation strategies; and the school sector by a strict horizontal top-down integration without the involvement of other actors. Implementation strategies differ by policy field. Therefore, continuous evaluation of the implementation process is necessary to align policy implementation with policy goals to promote individual PA behaviour.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Physical inactivity rates have remained high worldwide since 2001. Public policies are an essential upstream lever to target individual physical activity (PA) behaviour. However, implementers have different strategies and face implementation challenges that are poorly understood. The present study analyzes the implementation processes of public policies to promote PA in terms of: (i) the policies covered and their legal quality, (ii) the actors and stakeholders involved in the implementation process and (iii) the used implementation strategies (vertical, horizontal or a mix).
METHODS
A scoping review was systematically conducted (registered Open Science Framework: osf.io/7w84q/), searching 10 databases and grey literature until March 2022. Of the 7741 titles and abstracts identified initially, 10 studies were included.
RESULTS
The current evidence includes high-income countries (USA, n = 7; UK, New Zealand and Oman, n = 1 each). Policy areas covered are education (school sector) and PA promotion in general (national PA plans or city-wide approaches). The legal classification ranges from laws (school sector) to coordination and budgeting to non-legally binding recommendations. The jurisdictions covered were federal (n = 4), state (n = 1), county (n = 1), school district (n = 1) and city (n = 3). Implementation strategies for city-wide approaches are characterized by a coordinated approach with vertical and horizontal integration; federal PA policies by a mix of implementation strategies; and the school sector by a strict horizontal top-down integration without the involvement of other actors.
CONCLUSION
Implementation strategies differ by policy field. Therefore, continuous evaluation of the implementation process is necessary to align policy implementation with policy goals to promote individual PA behaviour.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36444100
pii: 6849867
doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckac089
pmc: PMC9706118
doi:

Types de publication

Review Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

iv59-iv65

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association.

Références

J Phys Act Health. 2014 Mar;11(3):470-7
pubmed: 24714333
J Public Health Manag Pract. 2008 May-Jun;14(3):280-8
pubmed: 18408553
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020 Apr 7;17(1):47
pubmed: 32264899
J Phys Act Health. 2021 Oct 22;18(12):1473-1478
pubmed: 34686615
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2022 Feb 12;19(1):16
pubmed: 35151330
J Sch Health. 2011 Aug;81(8):502-11
pubmed: 21740436
Lancet Glob Health. 2018 Oct;6(10):e1077-e1086
pubmed: 30193830
J Phys Act Health. 2015 Jun;12(6):749-55
pubmed: 25134019
Lancet. 2012 Jul 21;380(9838):294-305
pubmed: 22818941
J Sport Health Sci. 2021 May;10(3):263-276
pubmed: 33482424
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467-473
pubmed: 30178033
Health Res Policy Syst. 2019 Aug 22;17(1):82
pubmed: 31438977
Health Place. 2012 Jan;18(1):5-7
pubmed: 22243901
Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2020 Jan;4(1):23-35
pubmed: 31761562
Br J Sports Med. 2022 Jan;56(2):101-106
pubmed: 33782046
J Phys Act Health. 2014 Mar;11(3):463-9
pubmed: 24714332
J Phys Act Health. 2014 Aug;11(6):1120-8
pubmed: 24176800

Auteurs

Sarah Forberger (S)

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

Lucia A Reisch (LA)

Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology-BIPS, Bremen, Germany.
Behavioural Economics and Policy, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Biljana Meshkovska (B)

Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Domus Medica, Oslo, Norway.

Karolina Lobczowska (K)

Department of Psychology in Wroclaw, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Wroclaw, Poland.

Daniel A Scheller (DA)

Division of Sports and Rehabilitation Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Ulm University Medical Center, Ulm, Germany.

Janine Wendt (J)

Division of Sports and Rehabilitation Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Ulm University Medical Center, Ulm, Germany.

Lara Christianson (L)

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

Jennifer Frense (J)

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

Jürgen M Steinacker (JM)

Division of Sports and Rehabilitation Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Ulm University Medical Center, Ulm, Germany.

Catherine B Woods (CB)

School of Health and Human Performance, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland.
Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Physical Activity for Health Research Cluster, Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.

Aleksandra Luszczynska (A)

Department of Psychology in Wroclaw, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Wroclaw, Poland.
Melbourne Centre for Behavior Change, Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Hajo Zeeb (H)

Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology-BIPS, Bremen, Germany.
Health Sciences Bremen, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.

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