Development of national physical activity recommendations in 18 EU member states: a comparison of methodologies and the use of evidence

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Tcymbal, A
Data de Publicação: 2021
Outros Autores: Gelius, P, Abu-Omar, K, Foster, C, Whiting, S, Mendes, R, Titze, S, Dorner, TE, Halbwachs, C, Duclos, M, Toussaint, JF, Wendel-Vos, W, Baxter, B, Ferschl, S, Breda JJ
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: https://hdl.handle.net/10216/149529
Resumo: Objectives: The aim of the study is to compare how member states of the European Union (EU) develop their national physical activity (PA) recommendations and to provide an overview of the methodologies they apply in doing so. Information was collected directly from the physical activity focal points of EU member states in 2018. Five countries were chosen for detailed case study analysis of development processes. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Participants: The representatives of the 28 EU member state governments to the EU physical activity Focal Point Network. Outcome measures: From national documents we extracted data on (1) the participants of the development process, (2) the different methods used during development, and (3) on which sources national PA recommendations were based. An additional survey for case study countries provided details on (1) anonymised information on the participants of development process, (2) methods employed and rationale for choosing them, (3) development process and timeline, and (4) main source documents used for recommendation development. Results: Eighteen national documents on PA recommendations contained information about development process. The results showed that countries used different approaches to develop national recommendations. The main strategies were (1) adoption of WHO 2010 recommendations or (2) a combination of analysis and adoption of other national and international recommendations and literature review. All of the five case study countries relied on review processes rather than directly adopting WHO recommendations. Conclusions: While there are arguments for the use of particular strategies for PA recommendation development, there is currently no evidence for the general superiority of a specific approach. Instead, our findings highlight the broad spectrum of potential development methods, resources utilisation and final recommendations design currently available to national governments. These results may be a source of inspiration for other countries currently planning the development or update of national PA recommendations.
id RCAP_82f961f5dbacb44f42e47bd425dfb932
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio-aberto.up.pt:10216/149529
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Development of national physical activity recommendations in 18 EU member states: a comparison of methodologies and the use of evidencehealth policyprotocols & guidelinespublic healthObjectives: The aim of the study is to compare how member states of the European Union (EU) develop their national physical activity (PA) recommendations and to provide an overview of the methodologies they apply in doing so. Information was collected directly from the physical activity focal points of EU member states in 2018. Five countries were chosen for detailed case study analysis of development processes. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Participants: The representatives of the 28 EU member state governments to the EU physical activity Focal Point Network. Outcome measures: From national documents we extracted data on (1) the participants of the development process, (2) the different methods used during development, and (3) on which sources national PA recommendations were based. An additional survey for case study countries provided details on (1) anonymised information on the participants of development process, (2) methods employed and rationale for choosing them, (3) development process and timeline, and (4) main source documents used for recommendation development. Results: Eighteen national documents on PA recommendations contained information about development process. The results showed that countries used different approaches to develop national recommendations. The main strategies were (1) adoption of WHO 2010 recommendations or (2) a combination of analysis and adoption of other national and international recommendations and literature review. All of the five case study countries relied on review processes rather than directly adopting WHO recommendations. Conclusions: While there are arguments for the use of particular strategies for PA recommendation development, there is currently no evidence for the general superiority of a specific approach. Instead, our findings highlight the broad spectrum of potential development methods, resources utilisation and final recommendations design currently available to national governments. These results may be a source of inspiration for other countries currently planning the development or update of national PA recommendations.BMJ Publishing Group20212021-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttps://hdl.handle.net/10216/149529eng2044-605510.1136/bmjopen-2020-041710Tcymbal, AGelius, PAbu-Omar, KFoster, CWhiting, SMendes, RTitze, SDorner, TEHalbwachs, CDuclos, MToussaint, JFWendel-Vos, WBaxter, BFerschl, SBreda JJinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2024-09-27T07:28:27Zoai:repositorio-aberto.up.pt:10216/149529Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openairemluisa.alvim@gmail.comopendoar:71602024-09-27T07:28:27Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Development of national physical activity recommendations in 18 EU member states: a comparison of methodologies and the use of evidence
title Development of national physical activity recommendations in 18 EU member states: a comparison of methodologies and the use of evidence
spellingShingle Development of national physical activity recommendations in 18 EU member states: a comparison of methodologies and the use of evidence
Tcymbal, A
health policy
protocols & guidelines
public health
title_short Development of national physical activity recommendations in 18 EU member states: a comparison of methodologies and the use of evidence
title_full Development of national physical activity recommendations in 18 EU member states: a comparison of methodologies and the use of evidence
title_fullStr Development of national physical activity recommendations in 18 EU member states: a comparison of methodologies and the use of evidence
title_full_unstemmed Development of national physical activity recommendations in 18 EU member states: a comparison of methodologies and the use of evidence
title_sort Development of national physical activity recommendations in 18 EU member states: a comparison of methodologies and the use of evidence
author Tcymbal, A
author_facet Tcymbal, A
Gelius, P
Abu-Omar, K
Foster, C
Whiting, S
Mendes, R
Titze, S
Dorner, TE
Halbwachs, C
Duclos, M
Toussaint, JF
Wendel-Vos, W
Baxter, B
Ferschl, S
Breda JJ
author_role author
author2 Gelius, P
Abu-Omar, K
Foster, C
Whiting, S
Mendes, R
Titze, S
Dorner, TE
Halbwachs, C
Duclos, M
Toussaint, JF
Wendel-Vos, W
Baxter, B
Ferschl, S
Breda JJ
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Tcymbal, A
Gelius, P
Abu-Omar, K
Foster, C
Whiting, S
Mendes, R
Titze, S
Dorner, TE
Halbwachs, C
Duclos, M
Toussaint, JF
Wendel-Vos, W
Baxter, B
Ferschl, S
Breda JJ
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv health policy
protocols & guidelines
public health
topic health policy
protocols & guidelines
public health
description Objectives: The aim of the study is to compare how member states of the European Union (EU) develop their national physical activity (PA) recommendations and to provide an overview of the methodologies they apply in doing so. Information was collected directly from the physical activity focal points of EU member states in 2018. Five countries were chosen for detailed case study analysis of development processes. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Participants: The representatives of the 28 EU member state governments to the EU physical activity Focal Point Network. Outcome measures: From national documents we extracted data on (1) the participants of the development process, (2) the different methods used during development, and (3) on which sources national PA recommendations were based. An additional survey for case study countries provided details on (1) anonymised information on the participants of development process, (2) methods employed and rationale for choosing them, (3) development process and timeline, and (4) main source documents used for recommendation development. Results: Eighteen national documents on PA recommendations contained information about development process. The results showed that countries used different approaches to develop national recommendations. The main strategies were (1) adoption of WHO 2010 recommendations or (2) a combination of analysis and adoption of other national and international recommendations and literature review. All of the five case study countries relied on review processes rather than directly adopting WHO recommendations. Conclusions: While there are arguments for the use of particular strategies for PA recommendation development, there is currently no evidence for the general superiority of a specific approach. Instead, our findings highlight the broad spectrum of potential development methods, resources utilisation and final recommendations design currently available to national governments. These results may be a source of inspiration for other countries currently planning the development or update of national PA recommendations.
publishDate 2021
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2021
2021-01-01T00:00:00Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://hdl.handle.net/10216/149529
url https://hdl.handle.net/10216/149529
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 2044-6055
10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041710
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv BMJ Publishing Group
publisher.none.fl_str_mv BMJ Publishing Group
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv mluisa.alvim@gmail.com
_version_ 1817547580746235904