See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/271666268

Putting Physical Activity on the Policy Agenda

Article  in  Quest -Illinois- National Association for Physical Education in Higher Education- · April 2012
DOI: 10.1080/00336297.2012.669318

CITATIONS READS

20 413

2 authors:

Catherine B Woods Nanette Mutrie

University of Limerick The University of Edinburgh
153 PUBLICATIONS   1,971 CITATIONS    399 PUBLICATIONS   13,039 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ireland's Physical Activity Report Card View project

IMPACT Study: Physical activity for people living with and beyond cancer View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Catherine B Woods on 20 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Quest, 64:92–104, 2012
Copyright © National Association for Kinesiology in Higher Education (NAKHE)
ISSN: 0033-6297 print / 1543-2750 online
DOI: 10.1080/00336297.2012.669318

Putting Physical Activity on the Policy Agenda

CATHERINE B. WOODS
School of Health and Human Performance, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

NANETTE MUTRIE
School of Psychological Sciences and Health, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

The purpose of this paper is to outline why physical activity policy is important in terms of promoting
population based increases in physical activity. The promotion of physical activity through public pol-
icy happens globally and nationally, however to be successful it should also happen at state and local
levels. We outline the rationale for the promotion of physical activity and the decrease of inactivity
from a public health perspective. The World Health Organization guidelines for physical activity are
then presented, followed by current physical activity prevalence rates in Europe and the US. We offer
a description of what physical activity policy is and the key criteria for inclusion in order to increase
the likelihood of its success. Finally, we present two case studies in relation to physical activity pol-
icy from Scotland and Ireland. Throughout we discuss how education and physical education could
benefit from such policies, or be hindered by lack of relevant policy.

Keywords physical activity, policy, public health, physical education

Physical inactivity involves little or no movement and has recently been identified as the
fourth leading risk factor for mortality in the world (http://www.globalpa.or.uk). Physical
activity involves any bodily movement that is produced by the contraction of the skele-
tal muscles and that substantially increases energy expenditure (Caspersen, Powell, &
Christenson, 1985). Regular participation in health enhancing physical activity (activity
that is sufficiently above baseline activity to produce health gain) has numerous health
benefits including a reduction in coronary heart disease and stroke, diabetes, hypertension,
colon cancer, breast cancer, and depression (World Health Organization, 2003; Mathers,
Stevens, & Mascarenhas, 2009). The majority of most populations do not engage in suf-
ficient physical activity to gain these health benefits. The high risk and high prevalence
of inactivity in most countries around the world make the promotion of physical activity
a major public health concern. In addition, physical inactivity contributes substantially to
direct and indirect healthcare costs. Such an important health behavior should be central to
education programs and activities.
Yet physical activity has more to offer than purely individual or societal health ben-
efits. Physical education, the systematic introduction to, and education in, sport, exercise,
and physical activity as part of the school curriculum, provides children with opportunities
to not only learn about movement skills, but also to learn through these activities about
other aspects of knowledge (Hardman, 2008). Physical activity can also help promote sus-
tainable development; urban design principles or transport policies that promote pedestrian

Address correspondence to Catherine B. Woods, School of Health and Human Performance,

Dublin City University, Dublin 9, Ireland. E-mail: Catherine.Woods@dcu.ie

92
 Physical Activity Policy 93

and bicycle travel give people the chance to opt to walk or cycle as a form of transport, thus
potentially reducing greenhouse gas emissions, congestion and air pollution (Heath et al.,
2006).
The global recommendations on physical activity for health published by the World
Health Organization (WHO) in 2010 aim to provide scientifically-informed guidance
on how much physical activity (in terms of frequency, intensity, time and type) differ-
ent population subgroups should do in order to accrue health benefits (World Health
Organization, 2010a). According to these recommendations, all children and young people
(aged 5–17 years) should accumulate at least 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous-intensity
physical activity daily. While most of this activity will be aerobic in nature, the impor-
tance of incorporating activities that strengthen muscle and bone at least three times per
week was also suggested. For this age group opportunities to be active should be facili-
tated through the family, the school and the community where the child lives, and include
activities like play, games, sports, transportation, recreation, physical education, or planned
exercise. Clearly education has a major role to play both in educating children about the
level of activity they should be doing to gain health benefits, but also in giving children the
skills and attitudes which will help them lead a physically activity life. A main contributor
to this education will be the physical education opportunities available to children.
For adults (aged 18–64 years), the WHO recommends participation in at least
150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity per week, or at least 75 minutes of
vigorous-intensity aerobic activity weekly, or an equivalent combination of moderate- and
vigorous-intensity activity (with activity performed in bouts of at least 10 minute dura-
tion). Additional benefits can be accrued relative to increasing the duration of the activity
at each intensity level. Similar aerobic physical activity recommendations exist for older
adults (65 years plus), with the addition of advice for those with poor mobility, or other
health conditions that might limit their ability to engage in physical activity. Additionally,
engaging in muscle strengthening activities which involve the major muscle groups on at
least two days per week is encouraged for all adults.
These guidelines have been adopted by numerous countries worldwide (Department of
Health and Children, 2009; OECD, 2010; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
2008; UK Department of Health, 2004; Chief Medical Officers, 2011). Physical activity
guidelines are important because they clarify for individuals, physical activity profession-
als, physical education teachers, and other key stakeholders in physical activity promotion
how much physical activity is required to benefit current and future health. This is impor-
tant advocacy information as it can be used to inform physical activity policy formation,
by for example, providing starting points from which to set targets for physical activity
promotion at population level or to justify the need for curriculum time for physical educa-
tion and extra-curricular activities. Guidelines also inform surveillance of population levels
of physical activity, allowing for monitoring over time and inter-country comparisons to
be determined and can also be used by those in charge of quality control in education
to determine if schools are achieving goals in relation to physical education and related
activity.
However, levels of physical activity in most populations are low, with levels of physical
inactivity rising in many countries. In Europe, approximately one in five children meet the
physical activity guidelines for developing their current and future health (Currie et al.,
2008; OECD, 2010). In 2001, 45.4% of U.S. adults self-reported achieving the US physical
activity recommendations (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2003). More than
half of the total adult population across the European Union (EU) and across the US are
now overweight or obese, and the rate of obesity has more than doubled over the past
94 C. B. Woods and N. Mutrie

20 years in most EU countries (OECD, 2010; Flegal, Carrol, Ogden, & Curtin, 2010).
Physical inactivity is a public health issue.
From this background it is clear that intervention is needed to promote population lev-
els of physical activity. Traditional physical activity programs that focus on the individual
have had limited success in promoting long-term adherence to physical activity (Mutrie &
Woods, 2003). Obstacles can prevent even the most motivated individual from being active.
These obstacles include car as opposed to pedestrian orientated transportation systems,
sedentary jobs, poor physical education provision leading to a lack of skill, competence or
understanding, lack of, or poorly maintained parks and other green spaces, and community
designs that require driving (King & Sallis, 2009). An ecological approach to the promo-
tion of physical activity is recognized as having potential to meet this grand challenge.
Ecological models recognize the importance of individual influences (intra-individual) on
health behavior, but they also identify the contribution of social and environmental factors
(extra-individual) (Sallis, Owen, & Fisher, 2008). They also adhere to the Ottawa Charter
for Health Promotion (World Health Organization, 1986). Figure 1 gives an example of
how an ecological model works; it posits that behavior is influenced by intra-individual
(e.g. attitudes, knowledge, skill), and extra-individual (at (1) interpersonal, for example,
teacher-child relationship; (2) organizational, for example, provision of physical education
within a school setting; (3) community, for example, relationships between schools in how
they address the needs of children and youth in after-school sport, and (4) public policy,
for example, educational policy on frequency and duration of physical education classes
within the school timetable) factors.
At the public policy level, the initiation, co-ordination and implementation of poli-
cies that promote physical activity, enhance opportunities for whole populations to be
active, and develop environments that promote active choices are necessary (Bull, Bellew,
Schoppe, & Bauman, 2004). This, policy based approach, is endorsed by the World Health
Assembly (in 2004, and again in 2008) in Resolution WHA57.17: Global Strategy on

Policy

Physical
Environment

Social
Environment

Individual

Figure 1. Graphic representation of the social-ecological model (color figure available online).
 Physical Activity Policy 95

diet, Physical Activity and Health, and Resolution WHA61.14: Prevention and Control
of Non-communicable Diseases (NCD), and most recently in the High-level Meeting of the
United Nations General Assembly on the prevention and control of NCD (World Health
Organization, 2004; World Health Organization, 2008; United Nations General Assembly,
2011). The resolutions urged Member States and Governments to develop national physi-
cal activity action plans and policies, with the ultimate aim of increasing physical activity
levels in their populations. Prior to these resolutions, the Center for Disease Prevention and
Health Promotion (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) set up the CDC WHO
Collaborating Center for Physical Activity and Health Promotion. This center is located
within the Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity at the CDC, and over the past decade
it has helped focus global health policy on physical activity promotion by (1) building an
evidence-base for interventions, (2) developing tools for surveillance of population levels
of physical activity, (3) evaluation, and (4) building capacity of those working in physical
activity and health promotion (Pratt, Epping, & Dietz, 2009). Pratt and colleagues indicated
that today physical activity is central to good public health practice globally and nationally;
however, they identified a future challenge as the development of this practice at state and
local level. The development of physical activity policy is central to this change in practice,
as a co-ordinated approach where global, national, regional, state, and local level policies
that promote, enhance, and develop opportunities for individuals, groups, and whole popu-
lations to be physically active are supported (irrespective of their origin—health, education,
sport and recreation, transport, and so on). The remainder of this manuscript will discuss
what a physical activity policy is, guidelines on how to write one and examples of good
practice that include practice in physical education. Although reference is drawn through-
out to a “national” physical activity policy, this information equally applies to physical
activity policy written for state, regional, or local areas.

What is Physical Activity Policy?

A policy is a statement of intent. Policy may be conceptualized as . . . “formal written
codes, regulations or decisions bearing legal authority . . . as written standards that guide
choices or . . . as unwritten social norms that influence or guide behavior” (Schmid, Pratt, &
Witmer, 2006, p. S22). Health-related public policy is when public policy impacts directly
or indirectly on health, by for example, at a national level through legislation creating sup-
portive environments for individuals to engage in health promoting behavior. This can occur
at a national level (for example, a law preventing individuals from smoking in workplaces)
or at a local level (for example, a school or a school district adopting a physical activity
policy that facilitates active school transport). A physical activity policy is an example of
a public health policy. It is a document that defines physical activity as a priority area;
that identifies specific population goals and targets, and that provides a framework for
action, or an action plan to achieve these goals (Bellew, Schoppe, Bull, & Bauman, 2008).
Ideally, a physical activity policy should also define of roles and responsibilities of involved
partners, allocation of resources, and clearly identify accountability for implementation of
specific components of the policy aligned to a realistic and achievable timeframe (Bull
et al., 2004).

Why is PA Policy Important?

A successful national physical activity policy has the potential to influence the health and
well-being of an entire population. Successful state or local policies have the potential
96 C. B. Woods and N. Mutrie

to influence all of the individuals within their geographical area, or specific setting, for
example, a school or workplace. Policy can give support, coherence, and visibility at the
political level, while also making it possible for the organizations involved at national,
regional, and local levels—for example, national government sectors, regional or local
authorities, stakeholders, and the private sector—to be logical and consistent in their
actions to achieve a shared goal (World Health Organization, 2010b). It can give all rel-
evant organizations a mandate to adopt shared strategies based on identified roles and
responsibilities.
This policy approach to the promotion of physical activity requires collaboration and
interaction among policy makers from several different sectors, each tackling the physical
activity goal for different reasons but with the same agenda to get the population or popu-
lation subgroup more active. A number of different government sectors can play a role in
achieving national physical activity goals. Although the main policy focus of these differ-
ent sectors is probably not “to increase levels of population physical activity,” if the policy
makers within each sector can be convinced that physical inactivity is a problem that needs
to be addressed, then they can change their public policy or allocate their public funds
in ways designed to address this problem (Leyden, Reger-Nash, Bauman, & Bias, 2008).
Additionally, advocacy in partnership for adequate resources and accountability for use of
these resources as well as acknowledgment of contribution could potentially lead to a better
policy. However, this leveraging of existing sector assets requires active engagement and
cooperation across a number of sectors (Mowen & Baker, 2009). WHO recently outlined
the potential role of different government sectors, identifying the specific roles that can be
played by public health, transport, environment, sport, and education sectors in the promo-
tion of physical activity. For example, in Ireland, the Smarter Travel Policy (Department
of Transport, 2009) states that there is a need to “minimize the negative impacts of trans-
port on the local and global environment through reducing localized air pollutants and
greenhouse gas emissions” (p. 27), and one strategy it proposes to do this is “of all travel
modes, cycling and walking have the lowest environmental impact. If we are to success-
fully promote cycling and walking as realistic alternatives to the private car we need to
ensure that they are, as far as possible, a safe and pleasant experience” (2008, p. 42). The
focus here is not on health, but on sustainability and environmental impact, yet with close
collaboration both the health and the sustainability goals can be achieved. Similarly, the
promotion of mixed land-use or urban planning strategies that facilitate physical activity
would come under the remit of the environment sector, creating school environments (not
just curricula) that promote and encourage active lifestyles would be the remit of education
and so on.
The Toronto Charter for Physical Activity was launched in May 2010 by the Global
Advocacy Council for Physical Activity (see www.globalpa.org.uk). This document is a call
for action and an advocacy tool; its aim is to create sustainable opportunities for physically
active lifestyles for everyone. Within the Toronto Charter there are nine guiding principles
listed for a population based approach to physical activity. These guiding principles iden-
tify the importance of evidence based approaches, of embracing equity by reducing social
and health inequalities or removing disparities in access to physical activity. Importantly,
the principles acknowledge the need to move beyond the individual to include environmen-
tal and social determinants of physical inactivity. Other principles identify sustainability,
a life-course approach to promoting activity and the need to garner political support and
resource commitment at the highest level. Four key action areas are identified; each area
makes a unique contribution but also builds and is shaped by the other areas. Each area
 Physical Activity Policy 97

requires action in partnership and the actors are listed as government, civil society, aca-
demic institutions, professional associations, the private sector, and other organizations as
well as the communities themselves.
Area one: Implement a national policy and action plan. The Toronto Charter outlines
how the presence of such a policy or plan will unify the many different sectors in work-
ing together to achieve a common goal. It also states how it would help clarify political
and financial commitment to the promotion of physical activity. Key components of such a
policy or plan include: engaging relevant stakeholders, identifying clear leadership, know-
ing roles and actions of all stakeholders, having an implementation plan that identifies
timelines, funding, and accountability. Ensuring that evidence based guidelines on physi-
cal activity and health are adopted and having a repertoire of different strategies that are
evidence-informed and inclusive of different social, cultural, and economic backgrounds is
also recommended. Even though the Toronto Charter stresses the importance of this area
as a key population based approach it suggests that the absence of such a policy or plan
should not prevent, nor delay regional, state, or local efforts to increase physical activity or
to develop relevant policy at their levels (Globalpa.org.uk).
Area two: Introduce policies that support physical activity. This area highlights sup-
portive policy and the regulatory environment in which this is placed. It cites examples such
as urban planning and design to support sustainable transport options, fiscal policies to sub-
sidise physical activity participation or educational policies to ensure quality opportunities
are provided to all children both within and outside the curriculum timetable at the school
setting.
Area three: Reorient services and funding to prioritise physical activity. This area
explains how different government sectors can still deliver their core business, but change
their priorities to focus on health enhancing physical activity goals. This would allow for
multiple benefits to be achieved, but these would need to be recognized as important and
given adequate priority. For example in Sport, Parks, and Recreation, changing the focus
away from elite or competitive sport participation to include a mass participation, an inac-
tive or a disabilities focus and consequently provide staff training to build capacity in these
areas. In Health this would involve giving greater priority to primary prevention and health
promotion, as opposed to secondary or tertiary prevention.
Area four: Develop partnerships for Action. Programs that focus on changing health
behavior of individuals within one sector can be labor, time, and money intensive. Rather
partnership that links programs across sectors, for example, education, transport, sports,
parks, and recreation and other sectors could create efficiencies, enhance use of community-
based physical activity programmes and increase physical activity (Mowen & Baker, 2009).
Examples of different partnerships and collaborations across national, regional, and local
levels are given within the Toronto Charter see www.globalpa.org.uk.

Characteristics of Successful Physical Activity Policy

Based on a review of literature and on consensus meetings representing experiences of
writing physical activity policies from around the world a set of characteristics for generat-
ing successful physical activity policy were published (Bellew et al., 2008). These criteria
described by the acronym HARDWIRED, are explained in Table 1 and reflect the “charac-
teristics absolutely essential for national physical activity policy development” (p. 2). The
authors go on to suggest that these need to be embedded for the long-term in order to deliver
successful outcomes.
98 C. B. Woods and N. Mutrie

Table 1
HARDWIRED: Criteria for Writing a National Physical Activity Policy

Highly consultative in development (from grassroots to strategic policy makers)

Active through multi-strategic, multi-level, partnerships (across government sectors, non
government agencies, and private sector).
Resourced adequately (with stable and suitable financial and human resources).
Developed in stand-alone and synergistic policy modes.
Widely communicated.
Independently evaluated (including process, impact, and outcome indicators of success).
Role-clarified and performance-delineated.
Evidence-informed and evidence-generating.
Defined national guidelines for health enhancing physical activity.
Adapted from Bellew et al., 2008.

What Should Countries or States Do to Promote Physical Activity?

Global Advocacy for Physical Activity and leading academics and practitioners from
around the world reviewed evidence for interventions that were effective in increasing
physical activity levels. This review led to the production of a companion document to
the Toronto charter, titled “Seven investments that work” (http://www.globalpa.org.uk/
investments). These seven approaches are:
1. Whole of school programs in which schoolchildren are encouraged to be active on the
journey to and from school, during school break times, and after school and via quality
physical education programs at all ages
2. Transport policies and systems that prioritise walking, cycling, and public transport
3. Urban design regulations and infrastructure that provide for equitable and safe access for
recreational physical activity, and recreational and transport-related walking and cycling
across the life course
4. Physical activity and non communicable disease prevention integrated into primary
health care systems
5. Public education, including mass media to raise awareness and change social norms on
physical activity
6. Community-wide programs involving multiple settings and sectors and that mobilize
and integrate community engagement and resources
7. Sports systems and programs that promote “sport for all” and encourage participation
across the life span.
This document allows educators to argue for resources in their countries to enable the whole
of school approach which has evidence of being an effective way of improving health (see
http://www.globalpa.org.uk/investments for supporting references).

Examples of PA Policies in Action

Bornstein and colleagues published a review of six countries national physical activity poli-
cies. A national physical activity plan was defined as a “comprehensive document that
provided overall goals of the country’s physical activity plan, details for how the plan was
created, policy and/or practice recommendations, and epidemiological evidence to sup-
port their recommendations” (Bornstein, Pate, & Pratt, 2009, p. S246). Initial searches
 Physical Activity Policy 99

yielded 252 documents from 52 countries or regions, but following an inclusion criteria,
for example, excluding documents that did not represent one country a total of 6 docu-
ments from 6 countries emerged and were included in the review. The countries represented
were Australia, United Kingdom, Scotland, Sweden, Northern Ireland, and Norway (Health
Promotion Agency for Northern Ireland, 1997; The Strategic Inter-Governmental Forum
on Physical Activity and Health, 2005; National Food Administration & National Institute
of Public Health, 2005; Scottish National Physical Activity Task Force, 2003; Ministry
of Health and Care Services, 2005; UK Department of Health, 2009). In common, all
plans included key elements like consultation with key stakeholders; development of
coalitions across government, nongovernment and private sectors; use of individual and
environmental strategies for intervention. Most plans were found to be remiss in including
details on funding for implementation or evaluation of the plan, two of the key compul-
sory elements highlighted by Bellew and colleagues (Bellew et al., 2008). Evaluation and
review of the plan were conducted by only two countries, Northern Ireland and Scotland
respectively.
Bornstein and colleagues (Bornstein et al., 2009) provide an overview of the process
that different countries’ went through in order to develop their physical activity plans.
This process gives details on the consultation methodology and/or the relevant national
documents that were published prior to the publication of the physical activity plan, but
were important in paving the way for the national plan to be adopted. Their paper out-
lines the subpopulations targeted, for example, people aged 50+ (N. Ireland), children
(Australia), and adults (Scotland, Norway), and it provides details on the overall vision
and the strategic objectives of each country’s plan. The vision statements for each country
are different, but include reference to increasing levels of health related physical activity,
to decreasing sedentary or inactive behavior, to increasing population health and wellbe-
ing through physical activity and to populations enjoying the benefits of physical activity
as part of their everyday life. From the vision statements numerous strategic objectives
are highlighted. These objectives are presented under different sector headings including
business/industry, education, healthcare, mass media, parks/recreation/ fitness/sport, pub-
lic health, transportation/urban design/ community planning, volunteer and non-profit, and
an “other” category. This supports the importance of following the HARDWIRED criteria
in order to ensure that all potential partners are engaged in a strategic manner in order to
tackle the challenge of inactivity.
Similar findings are reported by the World Health Organization in their recent
policy content analysis, “Promoting sport and enhancing health in European Union (EU)
countries” (World Health Organization, 2011). Twenty-five national documents from
15 EU member states were identified from a total of 130 documents (27 EU member
states) as meeting the inclusion criteria. These were analyzed, and it was found that they
were issued mainly by government ministries (for example, education, culture and sport,
health, welfare, or local government), had a specified timeframe (this varied from 2 to
20 years) and gave some information on the policy development process (although the
quality of this information was mixed, ranging from alluding to a consultation process
through to a detailed account of all stakeholders and the approach taken to engage these
key groups). They also had defined participation targets that covered the continuum from
elite sport to sport for all and to health enhancing physical activity. Target groups, settings,
and implementation strategies were presented, for example, children were targeted in
all strategies, mainly in the school setting and through physical education (p. 32). WHO
highlighted the Dutch strategy “Time for Sport” as an example of good practice for budget
allocation. Under its focus “Participation through Sport” it allocated a specific budget
100 C. B. Woods and N. Mutrie

for each target set, for example, “Education through sport and school,” one of six areas
under this focus was allocated a budget of C1.5 million per year for a total of five years
to achieve its objectives (World Health Organization, 2011, p. 36). One critique by WHO
was that although most of the documents analyzed mentioned evaluation, the specific
evaluation information provided along with measurable outcome indicators was varied and
quite often absent. Adhering to a “HARDWIRED”criteria would stress the importance of
evaluation, and ideally the independent quality of this evaluation.

Will These Policies Help Educators?

We have already pointed out that the existence of global or national policies can help edu-
cators argue for resources, provide evidence for approaches that are effective, and provide a
framework for monitoring progress. However, the efficacy of such an intervention strategy
is yet to be determined (Hoehner et al., 2008; Mowen & Baker, 2009). Evaluating whether
or not policy has been effective in this regard is not straightforward and change can be
attributed to many causes. We will use examples from our own countries—Scotland and
Ireland—to show how different approaches, one based on policy, the other lack of policy,
have potential impact for provision of physical education within the school setting.
In Scotland, a national policy was agreed by all political parties in 2003. The policy
was entitled “let’s make Scotland more active.” The policy had a broad aim of increas-
ing the proportion of people in Scotland leading physically active lives. In particular, the
policy set a target for 2022 of 50% adults and 80% of children meeting the minimum lev-
els of physical activity for health gain. Several priorities emerged including children and
young people. One part of the policy suggested that all schools (from nursery to senior)
should provide a minimum of two hours of quality physical education in curriculum time
each week and adopt a “whole of school” approach to helping children achieve a minimum
of 60 minutes of activity each day. In 2005, it was reported that less than 5% of schools
achieved the minimum of two hours of physical education. However, in 2010 the percent-
age of schools providing the two hours of physical education had risen to 50% (http://www.
scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Education/Schools /HLivi /PEactivity). While it is difficult to say
that the policy caused this change in time spent in physical education, it is also difficult
to see alternative explanations for the observed increase. The national policy for physi-
cal activity in Scotland preceded a review of the whole school curriculum (including all
subjects, not just physical education or health education) and in forming our new approach
“the curriculum for excellence” a health and well-being strand was informed by the need for
physical activity in general and also for quality physical education in primary and secondary
schools. Education Scotland has in turn supplied in-service courses and on line resources
to help head teachers, class room teachers, and physical education teachers deliver
this health and well-being strand of the new curriculum (http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/
learningteachingandassessment/curriculumareas/healthandwellbeing/index.asp). In this
way, education policy was influenced by global and national policy and appears to
have had a positive effect on the percentage of schools providing the minimum require-
ment of two hours of physical education. To achieve this, more specialist physical
education teachers have been trained and more curriculum resources have been pro-
vided. The policy was reviewed in 2009 by a panel of independent experts. The full
report can be found at: http://www.healthscotland.com/uploads/ documents/9159-1150-
HS%20PA%205yr%20Review%20Final.pdf. The conclusions from the review were that
the policy was still relevant and the 2022 targets could be met if efforts were sustained
and refined. Refinements included more attention to segments of the population seen from
 Physical Activity Policy 101

National Health Survey data to be making slow progress towards the 2022 targets. Two
particular target groups were noted: older adults and adolescent girls. This re-statement of
the policy and refinement of target groups may help deliver the increased physical activity
goals for Scotland and may also influence how schools tackle the low levels of activity for
adolescent girls in particular. As a result of the review a summit was organized involving
educators, local service providers, practitioners and academics to make suggestions on how
to improve activity levels for adolescent girls within and beyond school (http://www.paha.
org.uk/Resource/ teenage-girls-physical-activity-summit). This is another example of how
educators can benefit from physical activity policy.
In Ireland, no national physical activity policy exists. Consequently, a national vision
for physical activity with clear goals, a strategic plan of action, an identification of
resources, partners nor evaluation mechanisms exist. There are many policy documents
within different government sectors that identify physical activity promotion as part of
their agenda. The Ready, Steady, Play! A national play policy (National Children’s Office,
2004) outlines the need “to plan for an increase in public play facilities and thereby improve
quality of life of children living in Ireland, providing them with more quality play oppor-
tunities” (p. 8). The Department of Transport’s policy for Ireland 2009–2020 encourages
schools to adopt “active travel plans,” advocates for “a strong cycling culture in the cities,
towns, villages, and rural areas of Ireland” (Department of Transport, 2009, p. 42) and
Teenspace: A national recreation policy—12–18 year olds has, as its second objective, the
“need to develop increased opportunities for dance and physical activity, and tackle gender
issues around provision in sport” (Office for the Minister of Children and Youth Affairs,
2007). However, without a “clear stand along/single issue physical activity policy state-
ment” (Bellew et al., 2008, p. 2) these related strands of physical activity policy embedded
within other agendas may be less effective. Without the backing of a national physical
activity policy, within which there is a defined role for education (particularly physical
education) then it is more difficult to convince decision makers of its contribution, need
and importance. In 2010, a working group was set up by the Health Services Executive
(HSE) and its purpose was to provide the Department of Health and Children with an ini-
tial draft national physical activity plan. Membership of this group included representatives
from the sectors of Health, Transport, Education, Environment, Sport, local authorities, Non
Governmental Organizations and academics. It was chaired by the HSE. The academics on
the working group were invited from three different third level institutions in the Republic
of Ireland and one from the North of Ireland to provide a whole island approach to the
promotion of physical activity. The academics represented the areas of sport and exercise
science, physical activity, and public health and physical education teacher education. Their
role was to provide scientific information and to lead on the writing of the draft plan. This
important advocacy opportunity, although outside the academic remit of research or teach-
ing, provided a unique chance to ensure that current scientific information was available
to a key group of policy decision makers from a number of different government sectors
in Ireland. Information provided included the evidence base for why physical activity is
an important public health issue, statistics on the prevalence of physical activity and inac-
tivity in Ireland (and compared to other countries), advice on the recommended minimum
amounts of physical activity necessary for health benefit and perspective on current capac-
ity in physical education, sport, and physical activity and on the need for evidence-based
intervention in different areas was highlighted. The role of quality physical education was
clearly documented and is included in the draft plan, along with the need to provide chil-
dren and young people with a broad range of opportunities to engage in physical activity
outside of school, recommendations relevant to other sectors are also present. The first draft
102 C. B. Woods and N. Mutrie

of the national physical activity plan is with the HSE, and it is hoped that it will influence
the writing of the current national public health policy by strengthening the inclusion of
physical activity as a determinant of health. The challenge will be to ensure that it is cir-
culated widely to all key stakeholders, for example physical education teachers, coaches,
parents, architects, engineers, planners, urban designers, and so on, for consideration and
feedback prior to finalization, consistent with the HARDWIRED criteria. Upon completion
of the consultation, an implementation plan will then need to be drawn up.

Conclusion
In conclusion, this paper has provided an overview of what a physical activity policy
is, why it is important and key criteria that can influence the success of such a doc-
ument. Recent physical activity policy documents have been referenced, and two case
studies discussed. The policy space that any country devotes to the physical activity needs
of its citizens is varied; good policy does not guarantee better resources, but it has the
potential to influence practice through formal written codes, regulations or standards to
guide choices. Consequently, policy has the potential to increase the likelihood that qual-
ity physical education is offered to all children and young people, that opportunities to
be active are enhanced through urban design, planning, and transport policies that facili-
tate active modes of travel, that national targets are set, monitored and evaluated ensuring
accountability is determined. Ultimately, a national or state physical activity policy has
the potential to increase the likelihood that the physical, social and mental well being
that can be achieved through regular health enhancing physical activity for all the pop-
ulation is achieved. The role of the academic in this development is clear; they need to
be able to produce good scientific evidence—found in physical education, physiology,
psychology, public health, planning and transport, etc.—into meaningful advice and rec-
ommendations for the key policy makers in the various government sectors in order to
ensure that the potential of physical activity in the promotion of health (in its broadest
sense) is realized.

Acknowledgments
This paper was presented at the Association Internationale des Ecoles Superieures
d’Education Physique [International Association for Physical Education in Higher
Education] International Conference hosted by the University of Limerick in June 2011.
The main theme of the conference was “Moving People, People Moving” and this paper
was presented under the sub-theme of physical activity and health policies: implementation
and implications within and beyond school. Professor Mutrie presented the keynote paper
“Putting policy firmly on the physical activity agenda” and Dr. Woods provided a response,
placing the issues raised in an Irish context. The session was chaired by Mr. Peter Smyth
from the Irish Sports Council.

References
Bellew, B., Schoppe, S., Bull, F. C., & Bauman, A. (2008). The rise and fall of Australian physical
activity policy 1996–2006: A national review framed in an international context. Australia and
New Zealand Health Policy, 5(18), 1–10.
Bornstein, D. B., Pate, R. R., & Pratt, M. (2009). A review of the national physical activity plans of
six countries. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 6(S2), S245–S264.
 Physical Activity Policy 103

Bull, F., Bellew, B., Schoppe, S., & Bauman, A. (2004). Developments in national physical activity
policy: An international review and recommendations towards better practice. Journal of Science
and Medicine in Sport, 7(1), S93–S104.
Caspersen, C., Powell, K. E., & Christenson, G. (1985). Physical activity, exercise and physi-
cal fitness: Definitions and distinctions for health-related research. Public Health Reports, 100,
126–131.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2003). Prevalence of physical activity, including lifestyle
activities among adults—United States, 2000–2001. MMWR, 5(32), 764–769.
Chief Medical Officers (2011). Start Active, Stay Active: A report on the physical activity for health
from the four home countries. London: UK Department of Health.
Currie, C. E., NiGabhainn, S., Godeau, E., Roberts, C., Smith, R., & Currie, D. (2008). Inequalities
in young people’s health: HBSC international report from 2005–2006 survey.
Department of Health and Children (2009). The national physical activity guidelines for Ireland.
Dublin: The Stationary Office.
Department of Transport (2009). Smarter Travel: A sustainable transport future. A new transport
policy for Ireland 2009–2020. Dublin: Department of Transport.
Flegal, K., Carrol, M., Ogden, C., & Curtin, L. (2010). Prevalence and trends in obesity among US
adults, 1999–2008. Journal of the American Medical Association, 303(3), 235–241.
Hardman, K. (2008). Physical education in schools: A global perspective. Kinesiology, 40, 5–28.
Health Promotion Agency for Northern Ireland (1997). Physical activity: An investment in public
health. The Northern Ireland Physical Activity Strategy Action Plan 1998–2002 Belfast: HPANI.
Heath, G. W., Brownson, R. C., Kruger, J., Miles, R., Powell, K. E., Ramsey, L. T., et al. (2006). The
effectiveness of urban design and land use and transport policies and practices to increase physical
activity: A systematic review. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 3, S55–S76.
Hoehner, C. M., Soares, S., Perez, D., Riberio, I. C., Joshu, C. E., & Pratt, M. (2008). Physical activity
interventions in Latin America: A systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,
34, 224–233.
King, A. C., & Sallis, J. F. (2009). Why and how to improve physical activity promotion: Lessons
from behavioral science and related fields. Preventive Medicine, 49, 286–288.
Leyden, K. M., Reger-Nash, B., Bauman, A., & Bias, T. (2008). Changing the hearts and minds of
policy makers: An exploratory study associated with the West Virginia Walks Campaign. American
Journal of Health Promotion, 22(3), 204–207.
Mathers, C., Stevens, G., & Mascarenhas, M. (2009). Mortality and burden of disease attributable to
selected major risks. Geneva: World Health Organization.
Ministry of Health and Care Services (2005). The Action Plan on Physical Activity 2005–2009.
Working together for Physical Activity. Norway: Ministry of Health and Care Services.
Mowen, A. J., & Baker, B. L. (2009). Park, Recreation, Fitness and Sport Sector Recommendations
for a more physically active America: A white paper for the United States National Physical
Activity Plan. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 6(S2), S236–S244.
Mutrie, N., & Woods, C. B. (2003). How can we get people to become more active? A problem
waiting to be solved. In J. McKenna & C. Riddoch (Eds.), Perspectives on Health and Exercise
(1st ed., pp. 129–152). Basingstoke, Uk: Palgrave Macmillan.
National Children’s Office (2004). Read, Steady, Play! A national play policy Dublin: National
Children’s Office.
National Food Administration & National Institute of Public Health (2005). Background Material
to the Action Plan for Healthy Dietary Habits and Increased Physical Activity. Uppsala, Sweden:
National Food Administration.
OECD (2010). Health at a Glance: Europe 2010. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://www.
oecd.org/
Office for the Minister of Children and Youth Affairs (2007). Teenspace: A national recreation policy
for young people. Dublin: Minister for Children and Youth Affairs.
Pratt, M., Epping, J. N., & Dietz, W. H. (2009). Putting physical activity into public health: A
historical perspective from the CDC. Preventive Medicine, 49, 301–302.
104 C. B. Woods and N. Mutrie

Sallis, J., Owen, N., & Fisher, E. B. (2008). Ecological models of health behavior. In K. Glanz,
B. K. Rimer, & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Health Behavior and Health Education. Theory, Research
and Practice (4th ed.), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schmid, T., Pratt, M., & Witmer, L. (2006). A framework for physical activity policy research.
Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 3, S20–S29.
Scottish National Physical Activity Task Force (2003). Let’s Make Scotland More Active: A Strategy
for Physical Activity. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.
The Strategic Inter-Governmental Forum on Physical Activity and Health (2005). National Public
Health Partnership, Be Active Australia: A Framework for Health Sector Action for Physical
Activity 2005–2010. Melbourne, Australia: National Public Health Partnership.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2008). Physical activity guidelines for Americans.
Retrieved from http://www.health.gov/paguidelines/
UK Department of Health (2004). At least five a week: Evidence on the impact of physical activity
and its relationship to health. A report from the Chief Medical Officer. London: Department of
Health.
UK Department of Health (2009). Be Active. Be Healthy: A plan for getting the nation moving.
London: Department of Health.
United Nations General Assembly. (2011). Political declaration of the High-level Meeting of the
General Assembly on the Prevention and Control of Non-communicable Diseases, p. 1–12.
Retrieved from http://www.globalpa.org.uk/
World Health Organization (1986). The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. Retrieved from
www.euro.who.int/pubrequest/
World Health Organization (2003). Health and development through physical activity and sport.
Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Retrieved from www.euro.who.int/pubrequest/
World Health Organization (2004). Resolution WHA57.17. Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity,
and Health. In: Fifty-seventy World Health Assembly, Geneva, 17–22 May 2004. Resolutions
and decisions, annexes. Geneva: World Health Organization. Retrieved from www.euro.who.int/
pubrequest/
World Health Organization (2008). 2008–2013 Action Plan for the Global Strategy for the Prevention
and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases. Geneva: World Health Organization. Retrieved from
www.euro.who.int/pubrequest/
World Health Organization (2010a). Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health.
Geneva: WHO. Retrieved from www.euro.who.int/pubrequest/
World Health Organization (2010b). Review of physical activity promotion policy development
and legislation in European Union Member States (Rep. No. 10). Copenhagen: World Health
Organization. Retrieved from www.euro.who.int/pubrequest/
World Health Organization (2011). Promoting sport and enhancing health in European Union
countries: A policy content analysis to support action. Copenhagen: World Health Organization
Regional Office for Europe. Retrieved from www.euro.who.int/pubrequest/
Copyright of Quest (00336297) is the property of Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

View publication stats