Are physical activity referral scheme components associated with increased physical activity, scheme uptake, and adherence rate? A meta-analysis and meta-regression.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity referral schemes (PARS) are composed of various components, such as a written prescription or a person-centered approach. The role of these components in their effectiveness is yet to be understood. Therefore, we aimed to explore the relationships between PARS components and physical activity, scheme uptake, and adherence rate; and to estimate the effect of PARS. METHODS: We searched Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, HTA, Wiley Online Library, SAGE Journals, Taylor & Francis, Google Scholar, OpenGrey, and CORE. Eligible studies were published between 1990 and November 2023 in English or German, investigated PARS with participants aged ≥ 16 years, and reported physical activity, scheme uptake, or scheme adherence. Separate random-effects meta-analysis by comparison group were conducted for physical activity. Scheme uptake and adherence rates were pooled using proportional meta-analysis. The components were analyzed via univariate meta-regression. We rated the risk of bias using RoB2 and ROBINS-I, and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. RESULTS: Fifty-two studies were included. PARS were more effective in increasing physical activity than usual care (k = 11, n = 5046, Hedges' g = 0.18, 95%CI 0.12 to 0.25; high certainty of evidence). When PARS were compared with physical activity advice or enhanced scheme versions, the pooled Hedges' g values for physical activity were -0.06 (k = 5, n = 1082, 95%CI -0.21 to 0.10; low certainty of evidence), and 0.07 (k = 9, n = 2647, 95%CI -0.03 to 0.18; low certainty of evidence) respectively. Scheme uptake was 87% (95%CI 77% to 94%, k = 14, n = 5000) across experimental studies and 68% (95%CI 51% to 83%, k = 14, n = 25,048) across non-experimental studies. Pooled scheme adherence was 68% (95%CI 55% to 80%, k = 16, n = 3939) and 53% (95%CI 42% to 63%, k = 18, n = 14,605). The meta-regression did not detect any significant relationships between components and physical activity or scheme uptake. A person-centered approach, screening, and brief advice were positively associated with scheme adherence, while physical activity sessions were negatively associated. CONCLUSION: PARS are more effective in increasing physical activity than usual care only. We did not identify any components as significant predictors of physical activity and scheme uptake. Four components predicted scheme adherence, indicating that the component-effectiveness relationship warrants further research.

A systematic review and narrative synthesis of physical activity referral schemes' components.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity referral schemes (PARS) are complex multicomponent interventions that represent a promising healthcare-based concept for physical activity (PA) promotion. This systematic review and narrative synthesis aimed to identify the constitutive components of PARS and provide an overview of their effectiveness. METHODS: Following a published protocol, we conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, HTA, Wiley Online Library, SAGE Journals, Taylor & Francis, Google Scholar, OpenGrey, and CORE from 1990 to January 2023. We included experimental, quasi-experimental, and observational studies that targeted adults participating in PARS and reported PA outcomes, scheme uptake, or adherence rates. We performed an intervention components analysis using the PARS taxonomy to identify scheme components and extracted data related to uptake, adherence, and PA behavior change. We combined these to provide a narrative summary of PARS effectiveness. RESULTS: We included 57 studies reporting on 36 PARS models from twelve countries. We identified 19 PARS components: a patient-centered approach, individualized content, behavior change theory and techniques, screening, brief advice, written materials, a written prescription, referral, baseline and exit consultation, counselling support session(s), PA sessions, education session(s), action for non-attendance, structured follow-up, a PA network, feedback for the referrer, and exit strategies/routes. The PARS models contained a mean of 7 ± 2.9 components (range = 2-13). Forty-five studies reported PA outcome data, 28 reported uptake, and 34 reported adherence rates. Of these, approximately two-thirds of studies reported a positive effect on participant PA levels, with a wide range of uptake (5.7-100.0%) and adherence rates (8.5-95.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Physical activity referral scheme components are an important source of complexity. Despite the heterogeneous nature of scheme designs, our synthesis was able to identify 19 components. Further research is required to determine the influence of these components on PARS uptake, adherence, and PA behavior change. To facilitate this, researchers and scheme providers must report PARS designs in more detail. Process evaluations are also needed to examine implementation and increase our understanding of what components lead to which outcomes. This will facilitate future comparisons between PARS and enable the development of models to maximize impact.

Population-based physical activity promotion with a focus on health equity: a review of reviews.

BACKGROUND: The extent to which people are physically active is dependent upon social gradients. Numerous studies have shown that especially people with social disadvantages do not meet the physical activity (PA) recommendations. A promising strategy to alleviate this issue are approaches that promote PA in the general population. In addition, several researchers have raised concerns that population-based health interventions may increase health inequities. The aim of the current review of reviews was therefore to identify successful population-based PA promotion approaches with a particular focus on health equity. METHODS: Six electronic databases were examined for systematic reviews on population-based PA promotion for the period 2015 to 2021. A reference list and grey literature search were also conducted. Two independent reviewers used inclusion/exclusion criteria to screen titles and abstracts of the potentially relevant literature and conducted a quality assessment for each identified review. All included reviews of population-based approaches for PA promotion with a focus on disadvantaged populations and/or health equity were narratively summarized. RESULTS: Our search resulted in 4,411 hits. After a systematic review process, six reviews met the inclusion criteria and were included after they were all rated as high quality. We identified that mass-media campaigns, point-of-decision prompts, environmental approaches, policy approaches, and community-based multi-component approaches can promote PA in the general population. Across populations with social disadvantages mass-media campaigns, point-of-decision prompts and policy approaches are likely to be effective as long as they are tailored. Regarding environmental approaches, the results are inconsistent. None of the reviews on community-based multi-component approaches provided evidence on health equity. CONCLUSION: There are several effective approaches to promote PA in the general population but evidence regarding health equity is still sparse. Future studies should therefore pay more attention to this missing focus. Furthermore, there is a lack of evidence regarding the type of tailoring and the long-term impact of population-based approaches to PA promotion. However, this requires appropriate funding programmes, complex study designs and evaluation methods.

Research- vs. government-driven physical activity policy monitoring: a systematic review across different levels of government.

BACKGROUND: Even though the importance of physical activity policy monitoring has increased in the last decade, there is a lack of understanding what different approaches exist and which methodology they employ. In order to address this research gap, this review attempts to map existing approaches of physical activity policy monitoring and to analyse methodological aspects, especially with regards to the roles of governments and researchers. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in five scientific databases (PubMed, Scopus, SportDiscus, Psycinfo, Web of Knowledge) in July 2021, and the identified records were screened independently by two reviewers. Records were included if they (a) focused on the monitoring of public policies to promote PA, (b) allowed to compare policies across time, across nations/regions or across policy sectors, and (c) were written in English, German or Russian. During full text analysis, information on methodological aspects was extracted and studies were categorized based on the level of government involvement. RESULTS: The search yielded in a total of 112 studies. 86 of these studies (76.8%) followed a research-driven approach (little or no government involvement) while only two studies (1.8%) were based on a government-driven approach (led by governments). The remaining 24 studies (21.4%) were based on a co-production approach (strong collaboration between researchers and governments). All in all, 18 different tools for physical activity policy monitoring were identified; key examples are the Report Cards on Physical Activity for Children and Youth (research-driven approach), the HEPA Monitoring Framework (government-driven approach) and the HEPA Policy Audit Tool (co-production approach). CONCLUSIONS: The level of government involvement in policy monitoring differs significantly, and research-driven, government-driven and co-production approaches can be distinguished. These approaches have different strengths and weaknesses, and can be linked to distinct theories of change and models on research-policy relations. Increasing awareness on the implications of these approaches is key to improve the understanding and further development of physical activity policy monitoring.

Effectiveness and implementation success of a co-produced physical activity referral scheme in Germany: study protocol of a pragmatic cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: While effective physical activity referral schemes (PARSs) and related structures for promoting physical activity (PA) already exist in several countries, in Germany, PARSs have not yet been implemented systematically and nationwide. Through a co-production approach with relevant actors in the German healthcare system, a PARS was developed, and an implementation plan was created (e.g. financing). This study protocol aims to evaluate the developed PARS for people with non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in Germany regarding its potential effectiveness and implementation success. METHODS: To evaluate the effectiveness and implementation success of the PARS, we will apply a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial (cRCT) in Hybrid II design by comparing two intervention groups (PARS vs PA advice [PAA]). The trial will take place in the Nürnberg metropolitan region, with 24 physician practices recruiting 567 people with NCDs. Both groups will receive brief PA advice from a physician to initially increase the participants' motivation to change their activity level. Subsequently, the PARS group will be given individualised support from an exercise professional to increase their PA levels and be transferred to local exercise opportunities. In contrast, participants in the PAA group will receive only the brief PA advice as well as information and an overview of regional PA offerings to become more active at their own initiative. After 12 and 24 weeks, changes in moderate to vigorous PA and in physical activity-related health competence (movement competence, control competence, self-regulation competence) will be measured as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes will include changes in quality of life. To measure implementation success, we refer to the RE-AIM framework and draw on patient documentation, interviews, focus groups and surveys of the participating actors (physicians, exercise professionals). DISCUSSION: Through a between-group comparison, we will investigate whether additional individual support by an exercise professional compared to brief PA advice alone leads to higher PA levels in people with NCDs. The acceptance and feasibility of both interventions in routine care in the German healthcare system will also be evaluated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04947787 . Registered 01 June 2021.

Cross-country collaboration for physical activity promotion: experiences from the European Union Physical Activity Focal Points Network.

BACKGROUND: An analysis of currently existing partnerships and cross-country collaboration for physical activity (PA) promotion is valuable for understanding how such partnerships operate, and how they impact national PA promotion efforts. This study aimed to outline the formation and development of the European Union's (EU) Physical Activity Focal Points Network, to evaluate its outputs and benefits and to describe its potential and challenges. METHODS: A mixed methods approach were employed, including document analysis, semi-structured interviews with key officials and an online evaluation survey with the focal points. RESULTS: The network was founded in 2014. Its main task is to coordinate the national collection of information for the EU's Health-Enhancing Physical Activity (HEPA) Monitoring Framework. Besides collecting data, focal points usually meet twice a year to share best practices and plan activities for the promotion of PA within the EU. The results of the evaluation survey show that participation in the network helped members specify goals for PA promotion, gain more knowledge regarding how to promote PA, identify more opportunities to promote PA in their country and to join a collaborative project with other countries. CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that the EU Physical Activity Focal Points Network may serve as an example of successful cross-country collaboration in PA promotion. The network has been able to make a contribution to monitoring the implementation of the EU Council Recommendation on HEPA across sectors in particular and of PA promotion in the EU in general.

A proposed checklist for climate-friendly sport and exercise programmes.

BACKGROUND: Fighting the climate crisis is the greatest challenge of our time and will touch all aspects of people's lives. In this context, the United Nations (UN) have called on the sport sector to reduce its negative impacts on the environment and show 'climate leadership'. While some efforts have already been made with regards to mega sport events, there is still a dearth of approaches on limiting the climate impact of recreational sport and exercise programmes. METHODS: Based on the UN-Framework 'Sports for Climate Action', literature reviews and additional desk research, a checklist to support local level stakeholders in providing climate-friendly sport and exercise programmes was developed. RESULTS: The proposed checklist consists of five dimensions that need to be considered when designing and offering a climate-friendly sport and exercise programme: (i) active transport to exercise programmes, (ii) the carbon footprint of different types of exercises, (iii) low carbon sport clothing and equipment, (iv) instructors as champions for climate action and (v) advertising and communication. These five dimensions result in a 16-item checklist that supports the planning, advertising, implementation and evaluation of climate-friendly sport and exercise programmes. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed checklist intends to facilitate the development of climate-friendly sport and exercise programmes. However, additional work is needed to test the implementation of the checklist at the local level. While the sport sector can make its own contributions to reduce its climate impact, intersectoral action is needed to improve infrastructure for active transport and to build sustainable sport facilities.

Monitoring of physical activity promotion in children and adolescents in the EU: current status and future perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Policy action is required to address physical inactivity in boys and girls. This action can be supported by international data collection, comparisons and sharing of good practices. Thus, this study aims to present and discuss the ongoing monitoring of physical activity (PA) indicators in children and adolescents in the 28 EU Member States. METHODS: Data on PA recommendations, PA prevalence, physical education (PE) and PA promotion programs for children and adolescents were provided by governments in a joint EU/WHO survey on the implementation status of the EU Council Recommendation on Health-Enhancing Physical Activity (HEPA) across Sectors. RESULTS: In 23 countries, national recommendations on PA are available. Detailed PA prevalence data among children and adolescents was available in 27 countries, in most cases separately for sex/gender and age groups. The total amount of PE lessons in schools differed greatly between countries and lessons were predominantly mandatory. After-school HEPA promotion programs were mostly implemented in EU Member States (78.6%), followed by active school breaks (57.1%), active travel to school (57.1%) and active breaks during school lessons (53.6%). CONCLUSIONS: This study summarizes the monitoring of PA indicators among children and adolescents in all EU Member States by providing a comprehensive overview of the status of PA promotion and monitoring across the region. Based on our findings, it could be concluded that the current EU monitoring system on PA promotion should be adapted to provide evidence that can inform future policy development.

Towards a harmonized European surveillance for dietary and physical activity indicators in young and adult populations.

BACKGROUND: The Policy Evaluation Network proposes a consolidated approach to measure comparable health indicators across European health surveillance systems to evaluate effectiveness of policy action. METHODS: In a stepwise approach, questionnaire items used by the systems for measuring diet and physical activity data to describe health indicators were identified based on their validity, reliability, and suitability to monitor achievement of health recommendations. They were collated to unified questionnaire modules and discussed bilaterally with representatives of these systems to explore barriers and facilitators for implementation. Also, establishment of a methodological competence platform was proposed, in which the surveillance and monitoring systems agree on the priorities and common quality standards for the harmonization process and to coordinate the integration of questionnaire modules into existing systems. RESULTS: In total, seven questionnaire modules were developed, of which two diet and two physical activity modules were proposed for implementation. Each module allows measurement of data reflecting only partial aspects of national and WHO recommendations related to diet and physical activity. Main barriers were the requirements of systems to monitor temporal trends and to minimize costs. Main facilitator for implementation was the systems' use of questionnaire items that were comparable to the unified modules. Representatives agreed to participate in a methodological competence platform. CONCLUSION: We successfully took first steps in the realization of the roadmap towards a harmonization of European surveillance by introducing unified questionnaire modules allowing the collection of comparable health indicators and by initiating the establishment of a competence platform to guide this process.

Health surveillance indicators for diet and physical activity: what is available in European data sets for policy evaluation?

BACKGROUND: Policies targeting diet and physical activity have the potential to improve health and well-being at a population level. However, the impact of these policies in Europe is currently unknown. Based on existing data, as well as on a needs assessment, we derived a catalogue of indicators that can be employed to evaluate such policies. These indicators may also inform the further development and harmonization of surveillance systems. METHODS: Forty EU experts agreed on a list of key indicators and ranked their priority for future surveillance. We mapped these indicators onto variables provided by ongoing European surveillance systems. Using a Likert scale (well matched, somewhat matched, poorly matched, unmatched), we assessed the suitability of these variables as measures for the indicators. RESULTS: Key indicators included behaviour outcome indicators relating to diet (n = 72) and physical activity and sedentary behaviour (n = 67) as well as upstream determinants of these behaviours. It was possible to map 72% of diet indicators and 86% of physical activity and sedentary behaviour indicators onto at least one variable in an ongoing surveillance system. CONCLUSIONS: Current monitoring and surveillance systems focus mainly on measuring 'downstream' indicators, while gaps exist in policy and environmental level data in dimensions such as inequality, funding and resources and governance.

[Dissemination of National Physical Activity Recommendations: Participatory Development of Dissemination Strategies in Germany]. / Disseminierung der Nationalen Bewegungsempfehlungen: Partizipative Entwicklung von Disseminierungsstrategien in Deutschland.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the first evidence-based National Recommendations for Physical Activity and Physical Activity Promotion were published in Germany. These recommendations are primarily intended for experts, decision makers and stakeholders. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to describe the development of dissemination strategies for these recommendations. PROCESS: To facilitate the co-production of knowledge between practitioners, decision makers, and researchers, a participatory approach was applied. This approach involved the development of target group-specific strategies for disseminating the recommendations. This was achieved in two workshops and one working group phase; 92 professionals and decision makers participated in the process. RESULTS: The working groups developed specific dissemination strategies that were grouped into the following strategy types: (1) inform multipliers, (2) activate multipliers, (3) use existing and develop new networks, (4) initiate policy change. CONCLUSION: The participatory approach adopted in this project was successful in developing dissemination strategies and is unique from an international perspective. To improve the evaluation of such co-production processes, future research should determine and operationalize appropriate indicators.

[Policies to promote physical activity in Germany : An analysis based on a policy audit tool from the World Health Organization]. / Politik zur Bewegungsförderung in Deutschland : Eine Analyse anhand eines Policy-Audit-Tools der Weltgesundheitsorganisation.

BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity is a key determinant of noncommunicable diseases. Therefore, the World Health Organization (WHO) as well as researchers worldwide have developed different tools to monitor and audit policies to promote physical activity. However, these tools have so far not been used to systematically collect and analyse data on physical activity promoting policies in Germany. AIM: This study aims to provide a systematic overview of policies to promote physical activity in Germany. METHODS: The study was conducted as part of the Policy Evaluation Network ( www.jpi-pen.eu ). Data from the European Union Physical Activity Monitoring Framework, desk research, and an expert survey were utilised and collected with the WHO's health-enhancing physical activity (HEPA) policy audit tool (PAT). RESULTS: The results highlight the wide range of relevant stakeholders and provide an overview of current policies as well as surveillance, evaluation, and funding. Significant accomplishments and persistent challenges are identified. DISCUSSION: An international comparison shows that, in contrast to Germany, other countries have formulated measurable goals for physical activity promotion on a national level. However, Germany is among a minority of countries with specific physical activity recommendations for adults with noncommunicable diseases. Further structural development of physical activity promotion in Germany is necessary.

Selection of key indicators for European policy monitoring and surveillance for dietary behaviour, physical activity and sedentary behaviour.

BACKGROUND: A pan-European approach to evaluate policy impact on health behaviour requires the employment of a consensus set of established and relevant indicators. METHODS: As part of the Joint Programming Initiative on a Healthy Diet for a Healthy Life, the Policy Evaluation Network PEN identified key indicators of health behaviours and their determinants. These key indicators are already, or have the potential to be, adopted by large European Union surveillance systems for the assessment of policy impact. The iterative selection process included consultations in two rounds via email prior to a 2-days expert workshop. The experts collated a list of dietary behaviour, physical activity and sedentary behaviour indicators for European policy monitoring in young and adult populations based on existing frameworks and literature reviews. The expert panel was composed of researchers, policy makers and representatives of major European surveillance systems and related initiatives, as well as, representatives of organisations providing monitoring data, such as the European Commission and Eurostat. RESULTS: The process provided two lists of key indicators including 37 diet 'policy' indicators and 35 indicators for dietary behaviour and their 'determinants'; as well as 32 physical activity 'policy' indicators and 35 indicators for physical activity, sedentary behaviour and their 'determinants'. CONCLUSION: A total of 139 key indicators related to the individual, the setting and the population level, and suitable for the assessment of dietary behaviour, physical activity and sedentary behaviour were prioritised by policy makers and researchers with the ultimate aim to embed policy evaluation measures in existing surveillance systems across the European Union. In a next step, data sources and suitable instruments will be identified to assess these key indicators.

Physical inactivity in nine European and Central Asian countries: an analysis of national population-based survey results.

BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity is a major risk factor for non-communicable diseases. However, recent and systematically obtained national-level data to guide policy responses are often lacking, especially in countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. This article describes physical inactivity patterns among adults in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Republic of Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkey and Uzbekistan. METHODS: Data were collected using the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire drawing nationally representative samples of adults in each country. The national prevalence of physical inactivity was calculated as well as the proportional contribution to total physical activity (PA) during work, transport and leisure-time. An adjusted logistic regression model was applied to analyze the association of age, gender, education, household status and income with physical inactivity. RESULTS: National prevalence of physical inactivity ranged from 10.1% to 43.6%. The highest proportion of PA was registered during work or in the household in most countries, whereas the lowest was during leisure-time in all countries. Physical inactivity was more likely with older age in eight countries, with female gender in three countries, and with living alone in three countries. There was no clear pattern of association with education and income. CONCLUSION: Prevalence of physical inactivity is heterogeneous across the region. PA during leisure-time contributes minimally to total PA in all countries. Policies and programs that increase opportunities for active travel and leisure-time PA, especially for older adults, women and people living alone will be an essential part of strategies to increase overall population PA.

Coproduction to improve preventive health services-experiences from Germany.

Due to the beneficial impact of regular physical activity (PA) on non-communicable diseases, the number of countries integrating exercise referral schemes (ERSs) into their healthcare systems is growing. Owing to the limitations of existing PA promotion concepts in Germany's healthcare system, efforts are currently being made towards developing a nationwide referral pathway. A research group at the Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg is coordinating these efforts within a project funded by the Federal Ministry of Health. The aim is to develop, implement and evaluate a regional-level ERS that has the potential to be scaled up across Germany in the event of its demonstrated effectiveness. The project is based on an adapted Cooperative Planning approach requiring interaction between the academic sector and different actors of the healthcare sector. The present commentary reflects on challenges faced in the early stages of the co-production process. Besides the development of an adequate co-production methodology, it critically discusses stakeholder participation, knowledge gaps and actors' willingness to take responsibility. In addition, although patients are represented by dedicated organizations, their perspective cannot be adequately captured using a co-production approach. Despite the joint development of an ERS, there remain important questions regarding the appropriateness of the co-production approach in a healthcare setting.

Regular physical activity (PA) reduces one's risk of developing various diseases and also plays a favourable role in managing symptoms and preventing further complications. Nationally and internationally, there exist different concepts on how to increase PA in the population at large. The Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg is currently working on a project that focuses on promoting PA in primary care. This project involves collaboration among various actors in the German healthcare system, such as healthcare insurances, representatives of physicians, patients and exercise specialists, who represent different interests and are experts in their fields of knowledge. During this process, various barriers have come to light, which yield important lessons for further studies. For example, there are differences in actors' levels of knowledge of the healthcare system and their willingness to take responsibility and initiative in the collaborative process. This article should give an impression of the joint development of exercise referral schemes, show the strengths and weaknesses and encourage exchanges of similar experiences of co-production processes.

Toward the economic evaluation of participatory approaches in health promotion: lessons from four German physical activity promotion projects.

Health promotion increasingly employs participatory approaches, but the question arises whether the likely higher costs of participation also translate into greater benefits. This article takes a first step toward a full health economic evaluation by comprehensively reporting the costs of a specific participatory approach, Cooperative Planning, in a German research consortium to promote physical activity. We conducted a costing analysis of Cooperative Planning at 22 sites across six settings. Project teams used a custom template to record resource use. We calculated average costs per meeting, site and setting using the opportunity costs approach, and obtained feedback from participating researchers. A total of 144 planning meetings with an average of nine participants were conducted. Costs per meeting varied significantly across settings. Differences were mostly attributable to varying meeting duration, preparation time and numbers of participants. Across settings, human resources accounted for roughly 95% of the costs. Implementing researchers reported challenges regarding the logic and methods of the health economic analysis. A participatory approach to physical activity promotion may cause substantially varying costs in different settings despite similar cost structures. However, their value for money could turn out comparably favorable if (and only if) the expected benefits is indeed forthcoming. Despite some challenges implementing the costing exercise into the logistics of ongoing participatory projects, this analysis may pave the way toward a full health economic evaluation, and the template may be useful to future participatory health promotion projects.

Co-producing an action-oriented framework for community-based Physical Activity Promotion in Germany.

German National Recommendations for Physical Activity (PA) and PA Promotion recommend community-based approaches to promote PA at the local level with a focus on health equity. In addition, the German Federal Prevention Act addresses health equity and strengthens setting-based health promotion in communities. However, the implementation of both in the local context remains a challenge. This article describes Phase 1 of the KOMBINE project that aims to co-produce an action-oriented framework for community-based PA promotion focusing on structural change and health equity. (i) In a series of workshops, key stakeholders and researchers discussed facilitators, barriers and needs of community-based PA promotion focusing on health equity. (ii) The research team used an inductive approach to cluster all findings and to identify key components and then (iii) compared the key components with updated literature. (iv) Key components were discussed and incorporated into a gradually co-produced framework by the participants. The first result of the co-production process was a catalog of nine key components regarding PA-related health promotion in German communities. The comparison of key components with scientific evidence showed a high overlap. Finally, a six-phase action-oriented framework including key components for community-based PA promotion was co-produced. The six-phase action-oriented framework integrates practice-based and scientific evidence on PA-related health promotion and health equity. It represents a shared vision for the implementation of National Recommendations for PA and PA Promotion in Germany. The extent to which structural changes and health equity can be achieved is currently being investigated in pilot-studies.

This paper describes how the participants in the KOMBINE project were involved in an innovative approach to transfer the German National Recommendations for Physical Activity (PA) and PA Promotion into the local practice of communities. Scientists, politicians and community actors (e.g. mayors, heads of sports departments) discussed their knowledge and experiences of facilitators, barriers and needs to promote PA in communities, specifically for people in difficult life situations (e.g. individuals with social disadvantages). Based on the results, they jointly developed key components and an action-oriented framework to implement the National Recommendations for PA and PA Promotion in German communities.

German recommendations for physical activity and physical activity promotion in adults with noncommunicable diseases.

BACKGROUND: Existing physical activity guidelines predominantly focus on healthy age-stratified target groups. The objective of this study was to develop evidence-based recommendations for physical activity (PA) and PA promotion for German adults (18-65 years) with noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). METHODS: The PA recommendations were developed based on existing PA recommendations. In phase 1, systematic literature searches were conducted for current PA recommendations for seven chronic conditions (osteoarthrosis of the hip and knee, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stable ischemic heart disease, stroke, clinical depression, and chronic non-specific back pain). In phase 2, the PA recommendations were evaluated on the basis of 28 quality criteria, and high-quality recommendations were analysed. In phase 3, PA recommendations for seven chronic conditions were deducted and then synthesised to generate generic German PA recommendations for adults with NCDs. In relation to the recommendations for PA promotion, a systematic literature review was conducted on papers that reviewed the efficacy/effectiveness of interventions for PA promotion in adults with NCDs. RESULTS: The German recommendations for physical activity state that adults with NCDs should, over the course of a week, do at least 150 min of moderate-intensity aerobic PA, or 75 min of vigorous-intensity aerobic PA, or a combination of both. Furthermore, muscle-strengthening activities should be performed at least twice a week. The promotion of PA among adults with NCDs should be theory-based, specifically target PA behaviour, and be tailored to the respective target group. In this context, and as an intervention method, exercise referral schemes are one of the more promising methods of promoting PA in adults with NCDs. CONCLUSION: The development of evidence-based recommendations for PA and PA promotion is an important step in terms of the initiation and implementation of actions for PA-related health promotion in Germany. The German recommendations for PA and PA promotion inform adults affected by NCDs and health professionals on how much PA would be optimal for adults with NCDs. Additionally, the recommendations provide professionals entrusted in PA promotion the best strategies and interventions to raise low PA levels in adults with NCDs. The formulation of specific PA recommendations for adults with NCDs and their combination with recommendations on PA promotion is a unique characteristic of the German recommendations.

How can the impact of national recommendations for physical activity be increased? Experiences from Germany.

BACKGROUND: Clearly stated national recommendations for physical activity (PA) are available in many nations. Yet, their impact on national level policy-making might be considered modest at best. This paper analyses the approach selected to curtail this problem in Germany. MAIN TEXT: Academics, government institutions and relevant stakeholders worked in collaboration to produce a series of national recommendations for PA and PA promotion published in 2016. Since their publication, these recommendations have achieved a measurable political impact through a systematic approach focused on dissemination and implementation strategies. For example, the German Conference of Health Ministers has acknowledged the national recommendations, endorsed their dissemination and proposed that they are included in measures within the Federal Prevention Act. CONCLUSION: Since their publication, the national recommendations have yielded satisfactory political impact. The contributing aspects might partially be explained by the Multiple Streams Approach.

[Recommendations for Physical Activity Promotion: Theory and Evidence]. / Empfehlungen für Bewegungsförderung: Theorie und Evidenzbasierung.

This article defines a framework for the development of recommendations for physical activity promotion. It aims to provide a theoretical foundation and rationale for classifications of physical activity promotion and approaches for the evidence base of recommendations. Perspectives from contrasting scientific disciplines were compared regarding their theoretical approach for physical activity promotion and their influence on possible classifications. In addition, various approaches of an evidence base were analyzed and integrated into a differentiated concept for the evidence base of recommendations. From a public health perspective, the use of integrative multi-level-models is fundamental as they can be combined both with different classifications, and individual, social, environmental and policy-based approaches. The evidence base should include the efficacy, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an intervention.The scientific and political rationale for recommendations for physical activity promotion can be supported by an explicit theoretical framework and a differentiated concept of an evidence base.