Evaluating and benchmarking physical activity policy as a tool to address the challenges of inactivity

Symposium C16

Abstract

Purpose: This symposium will explore what we know and what we have yet to learn about physical activity policy monitoring, evaluation, and benchmarking.

Description:

Chair: Professor Guy Faulkner, University of British Columbia, Canada. The UN Sustainable Development Goals and the WHO Global Action Plan on Physical Activity highlight the need to move beyond individual behaviour change to broader policy and system approaches, focusing not only on health but also on sustainability. Despite initial progress the systematic evaluation, benchmarking and continuous monitoring of public policies to promote physical activity (PA) are in their infancy and remain a challenge both from an academic and a practical perspective. Using lessons from international research, this symposium will take a deep look at promising approaches in addressing the inactivity, obesity and climate challenges through policy solutions in a systematic way.

Presenter 1: Professor Catherine Woods, University of Limerick, Ireland. Title: Examining what the scientific literature adds to our understanding of PA policy effectiveness. Description: This presentation will assess the contribution of existing scientific evidence from sport, education, transport and mass media to PA policy benchmarking and to informing policy-makers’ choice of appropriate policy instruments.

Presenter 2: Dr. Peter Gelius, FAU Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany.  Title: The usefulness of existing tools for policy monitoring and evaluation. Description: This presentation will examine the usefulness of existing tools for monitoring national and cross-national PA policy, e.g. the WHO HEPA Policy Audit Tool (PAT) and the EU Monitoring Framework on HEPA across sectors.

Presenter 3: Professor John C. Spence, University of Alberta, Canada. Title: Common Vision’: Canada’s PA plan and how it is to be evaluated. Description: This presentation will analyse the evaluation of national PA policy, using Canada as a case study.

Results: Preliminary evidence from a review of reviews (Gelius et al., 2020) and a review of studies (Woods et al., 2021) indicates that evidence for the effectiveness of PA policy is rather solid in some areas (especially school-based and infrastructural policies) but remains insufficient in others (especially economic policies). Both the WHO HEPA PAT and the EU Monitoring Framework were found to be useful across several EU countries, and data suggests these tools can provide an overview of national policy, while also aiding in valid cross-country comparisons (Gelius et al., 2021). However, sufficient resources and adaptation to national contexts are essential. Experience from the Canadian “Common Vision” PA plan indicates that evaluation is necessary, achievable and does not have to be expensive.

Conclusions: The Discussant, Mr. Matt Hermann, BC Ministry of Health, previously responsible for strategic leadership for PA, injury prevention, built environment, healthy communities and workplace with various levels of government will critique the evidence with respect to its usefulness to policy-makers. Further research is necessary to arrive at proper policy benchmarking; existing monitoring tools or bespoke frameworks - allowing for adaptation to national contexts - may serve as a basis for gathering information on policy implementation. They may also become an additional source of inspiration for countries wishing to undertake PA policy monitoring and evaluation.