Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros













Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
J Phys Act Health ; 20(2): 112-128, 2023 02 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36535269

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Physical activity (PA) surveillance, policy, and research efforts need to be periodically appraised to gain insight into national and global capacities for PA promotion. The aim of this paper was to assess the status and trends in PA surveillance, policy, and research in 164 countries. METHODS: We used data from the Global Observatory for Physical Activity (GoPA!) 2015 and 2020 surveys. Comprehensive searches were performed for each country to determine the level of development of their PA surveillance, policy, and research, and the findings were verified by the GoPA! Country Contacts. Trends were analyzed based on the data available for both survey years. RESULTS: The global 5-year progress in all 3 indicators was modest, with most countries either improving or staying at the same level. PA surveillance, policy, and research improved or remained at a high level in 48.1%, 40.6%, and 42.1% of the countries, respectively. PA surveillance, policy, and research scores decreased or remained at a low level in 8.3%, 15.8%, and 28.6% of the countries, respectively. The highest capacity for PA promotion was found in Europe, the lowest in Africa and low- and lower-middle-income countries. Although a large percentage of the world's population benefit from at least some PA policy, surveillance, and research efforts in their countries, 49.6 million people are without PA surveillance, 629.4 million people are without PA policy, and 108.7 million live in countries without any PA research output. A total of 6.3 billion people or 88.2% of the world's population live in countries where PA promotion capacity should be significantly improved. CONCLUSION: Despite PA is essential for health, there are large inequalities between countries and world regions in their capacity to promote PA. Coordinated efforts are needed to reduce the inequalities and improve the global capacity for PA promotion.


Asunto(s)
Ejercicio Físico , Políticas , Humanos , Epidemiología del Derecho , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Salud Global
2.
Br J Sports Med ; 49(11): 749-56, 2015 Jun.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24682248

RESUMEN

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.


Asunto(s)
Ejercicio Físico/fisiología , Política de Salud/legislación & jurisprudencia , Promoción de la Salud/organización & administración , Redes Comunitarias , Conducta Cooperativa , Europa (Continente) , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia , Objetivos , Educación en Salud , Promoción de la Salud/legislación & jurisprudencia , Humanos , Relaciones Interprofesionales , Liderazgo , Conducta de Reducción del Riesgo
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA