Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 19, 2025

Visualization of Intensity Levels to Reduce the Gap Between Self-Reported and Directly Measured Physical Activity
Published on: March 7, 2019
What we know about the actual implementation process of public physical activity policies: results from a scoping
Sarah Forberger1, Lucia A Reisch1,2, Biljana Meshkovska3,4
1Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology-BIPS, Bremen, Germany.
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.
More Related Videos
06:16Involving Individuals with Developmental Language Disorder and Their Parents/Carers in Research Priority Setting
Published on: June 6, 2020
06:05The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score PRIUS: A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time
Published on: February 19, 2021
Related Concept Videos
Models of Health Promotion and Illness Prevention II
The agent-host-environment model states that disease results...
Models of Health Promotion and Illness Prevention I
The health belief model (HBM) attempts to predict health-related behavior in specific belief patterns. According to the HBM, a person's...
Levels of Health Promotion and Illness Prevention
In primary prevention, actions taken before disease onset prevent the disease from...
Primary Healthcare Services
In 1978, international leaders convened in Alma-Ata, Kazakhstan, for what would be a pivotal event in global health. The Alma-Ata Declaration was the first to call...