Search

This study aims to present information on the surveillance, policy developments, and implementation of physical activity policies in the 28 European Union (EU) countries. Data was collected on the implementation of the EU Recommendation on health-enhancing physical activity (HEPA) across sectors. In line with the monitoring framework proposed in the Recommendation, a questionnaire was designed to capture information on 23 physical activity indicators. Of the 27 EU countries that responded to the survey, 22 have implemented actions on more than 10 indicators, four countries have implemented more than 20 indicators, and one country has fully addressed and implemented all of the 23 indicators of the monitoring framework. The data collected under this HEPA monitoring framework provided, for the first time, an overview of the implementation of HEPA-related policies and actions at the national level throughout the EU. Areas that need more investment are the "Senior Citizens" sector followed by the "Work Environment", and the "Environment, Urban Planning, and Public Safety" sectors. This information also enabled comparison of the state of play of HEPA policy implementation between EU Member States and facilitated the exchange of good practices., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

This article outlines a theoretical framework for an interactive, research-driven approach to building policy capacities in health promotion. First, it illustrates how two important issues in the recent public health debate, capacity building and linking scientific knowledge to policy action, are connected to each other theoretically. It then introduces an international study on an interactive approach to capacity building in health promotion policy. The approach combines the ADEPT model of policy capacities with a co-operative planning process to foster the exchange of knowledge between policy-makers and researchers, thus improving intra- and inter-organizational capacities. A regional-level physical activity promotion project involving governmental and public-law institutions, NGOs and university researchers serves as a case study to illustrate the potential of the approach for capacity building. Analysis and comparison with a similar local-level project indicate that the approach provides an effective means of linking scientific knowledge to policy action and to planning concrete measures for capacity building in health promotion, but that it requires sufficiently long timelines and adequate resources to achieve adequate implementation and sustainability., (© The Author (2013). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Despite the recent rapid development of policies to counteract physical inactivity (PI), only a small number of systematic analyses on the evolution of these policies exists. In this article we analyze how PI, as a public health issue, "translates" into a policy-making issue. First, we discuss why PI has become an increasingly important public health issue during the last two decades. We then follow Guy Peters and conceptualize PI as a "policy problem" that has the potential to be linked to policy instruments and policy impact. Analysis indicates that PI is a policy problem that i) is chronic in nature; ii) involves a high degree of political complexity; iii) can be disaggregated into smaller scales; iv) is addressed through interventions that can be difficult to "sell" to the public when their benefits are not highly divisible; v) cannot be solved by government spending alone; vi) must be addressed through a broad scope of activities; and vii) involves interdependencies among both multiple sectors and levels of government.We conclude that the new perspective on PI proposed in this article might be useful and important for i) describing and mapping policies to counteract PI in different contexts; ii) evaluating whether or not existing policy instruments are appropriate to the policy problem of PI, and iii) explaining the factors and processes that underlie policy development and implementation. More research is warranted in all these areas. In particular, we propose to focus on comparative analyses of how the problem of PI is defined and tackled in different contexts, and on the identification of truly effective policy instruments that are designed to "solve" the PI policy problem.

This article proposes to shift the focus of our view on evidence-based policy towards a comprehensive "policy orientation". While previous contributions on policy making in public health have already recognised that the evidence-based medicine paradigm is inappropriate for the specificities of the policy context, they still have primarily dealt with evidence of the policy content, i. e. with research to inform policy makers about "what works" in public health (e. g. evidence-based interventions on health determinants). However, they have widely neglected issues pertaining to the policy process, i. e. knowledge concerning "what works" in policy making (e. g. key determinants of policy development and policy implementation in order to build policy capacities and to improve policy outcomes). A broader perspective including the policy process will allow us to contextualise theory and research in a way more appropriate to the process of policy making and will help improve approaches of applied science and knowledge translation in public health. We will illustrate the differences be-tween a content orientation and a policy process orientation in public health by reviewing previous discourses on 3 closely related topics: (1) the production of evidence for policy making, (2) the conditions for the utilisation of evidence in policy making, and (3) the translation of evidence into policy making. We conclude that future public health theory and research, while continuing to broaden the evidence base on health determinants and health interventions, should increasingly focus on research concerning processes of public health policy development and implementation, building frameworks, developing methodologies, and conducting the necessary empirical research., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

The recent debate in public health about the "inequality paradox" mirrors a long-standing dispute between proponents of structuralist approaches and advocates of action theory. Both views are genuine perspectives of health promotion, but so far they have not been adequately linked by health promotion theory. Using Anthony Giddens's concepts of structure and agency seems promising, but his theory has a number of shortcomings that need to be amended if it is to be applied successfully to health promotion. After briefly assessing Giddens's theory of structuration, this paper proposes to add to it both the concept of structural change as proposed by William Sewell and the policy dimension as described by Elinor Ostrom in her distinction between "operational" and "collective choice" level. On this basis, a multi-level model of the interaction of structure and agency in health promotion is proposed. This model is then connected to central claims of the Ottawa Charter, i.e. "build healthy public policy", "create supportive environments", "strengthen community actions", and "develop personal skills". A case study from a local-level health promotion project in Germany is used to illustrate the explanatory power of the model, showing how interaction between structure and agency on the operational and on the collective choice level led to the establishment of women-only hours at the municipal indoor swimming pool as well as to increased physical activity levels and improved general self-efficacy among members of the target group., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

There is a growing interest among health promotion researchers to better understand and influence the policy process. However, at this point in time, theoretical concepts enabling researchers to do so are still rare and underused, suggesting a need for new, easy-to-use concepts to explain successes or failures of health promotion policies. This article presents the ADEPT (Analysis of Determinants of Policy Impact) approach, which aims to explain and influence policy development and policy impact implementation with four determinants: goals, obligations, resources and opportunities. ADEPT provides a detailed operationalization for both quantitative and qualitative use. An empirical test of the ADEPT model using a quantitative survey of 719 policy-makers from four health promotion policy fields and six European nations indicated that both policy outputs and policy outcomes are influenced by the four determinants. The approach has, in the meantime, been successfully utilized to analyze and initiate policy development in a number of health promotion projects. Despite a number of limitations, ADEPT provides an easy-to-use, theory-based and parsimonious tool for understanding and influencing policy processes in health promotion. Moreover, as it identifies potential 'levers of influence' and can easily be connected to existing methods of community development or capacity building, it is a particularly powerful tool for policy development.