| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | BROWSE ARTICLES | BROWSE BY AUTHOR |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
clinmed/2004060001v1 (June 29, 2004)
Contact author(s) for copyright information

STRATEGIES TO INCREASE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY IN THE COMMUNITY
There have been many different interventions at the community level to encourage people to become more physically active. A review of the published literature by Kahn et al (2002) defined three types of community intervention to increase physical activity: Informational approaches, behavioural and social approaches and environmental and policy approaches (Table 2). Informational approaches aim to increase physical activity by providing information that will motivate people to change their behaviour. These approaches often complement the medical model of disease management, for instance by supporting the management of cardiovascular disease. Behavioural and social approaches are often based on health promotion models in order to change individual and group behaviour. These interventions appear to be more effective in younger children and in a family setting than when provided within a school setting. Finally, environmental and policy approaches intend to increase opportunities for physical activity by providing gym facilities or activities in which to participate. Exercise referral schemes, which are becoming increasingly popular in the UK, are an example of this type of intervention.
Although there is evidence that some of these interventions may be effective at increasing levels of physical activity, it is not clear whether these gains are maintained in the longer term or result in better health outcomes. Unfortunately, many of these studies report interventions that are too intensive to be reproduced in a service setting and few consider their cost effectiveness. Disappointingly, physical activity interventions appear to be least effective amongst the least active individuals. However, increasing physical activity in this group would provide the greatest public health gain.

DISCUSSION
The majority of people in the UK do not take enough exercise. The effect on health is all too apparent when we consider the burden of obesity, type II diabetes and cardiovascular disease; lack of physical activity should be considered as great a threat to health as smoking. There is strong evidence that partaking in at least 30 minutes of physical activity on five or more occasions per week can prevent and reverse/manage conditions associated with physical inactivity. However, the evidence for community-based interventions is much weaker.
This presents a dilemma for public health practitioners – we know that physical activity is good for health, but we don’t know how to get people in the community to become more active. For example, the National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease recommends physical activity as a preventative measure, but does not address the lack of evidence-based interventions with which to achieve this. In 2001, the Department of Health published a guidance document Exercise Referral Systems: A National Quality Assurance Framework. However, the document is notable for an almost complete lack of evidence to support its guidelines. In order to address this gap in the evidence, a £2.6 million initiative called LEAP (Local Exercise Action Pilots) was launched by the Department of Health, the Countryside Agency and Sport England. Nine Primary Care Trusts will introduce and evaluate a range of interventions over a two-year period. However, it is unclear whether sufficient resources will follow to fund other PCTs to develop similar programmes.
CONCLUSION
Limited evidence for effective community-based approaches presents a significant challenge for public health professionals in Primary Care Trusts. In an environment under pressure to achieve targets within a limited budget, programmes without good evidence of effectiveness are often a ‘hard sell’. Nevertheless, with the majority of people not taking enough exercise and such strong evidence that physical inactivity is bad for health, it would be imprudent for Primary Care Trusts to not act.
REFERENCES
1. US Department of Health and Human Services. Physical Activity and Health: A report of the Surgeon General: Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 1996. 2. British Heart Foundation. British Heart Foundation Statistics Website: http://www.heartstats.org, 2003. 3. Department of Health. Diabetes National Service Framework, 2002. 4. Department of Health. More people, more active, more often. Physical activity in England. A consultation paper. London: Crown Copyright, 1995. 5. Royal College of Physicians. Medical Aspects of Exercise, 1991. 6. Health Education Authority. Health Update 5: Physical Activity, 1995. 7. Oberman A. Exercise and the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Journal of Cardiology 1985;55:109-22. 8. American College of Sports Medicine. The recommended quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory and muscular fitness in healthy adults. Medicine & Science in Sport and Exercise 1990;22:265-74. 9. Wimbush E. A moderate approach to promoting physical activity; the evidence and implications. Health Education Journal 1994;53:322-36. 10. Berlin J, Colditz G. A meta-analysis of physical activity in the prevention of coronary heart disease. American Journal of Epidemiology 1990;132:612-28. 11. Blair S, Kohl H, Paffenbarger D. How much physical activity is good for human health? Annual Review of Public Health 1992;12:99-126. 12. Activity and Health Research. Allied Dunbar national Fitness Survey: Main Findings. London: Sports Council and Health Education Authority, 1992. 13. Khan Eea. The effectiveness of interventions to increase physical activity. American Journal of Preventative Medicine 2002;22(4S):73-107. 14. Naidoo B, Thorogood M, McPherson K, Gunning-Shepers L. Modelling the effects of increased physical activity on coronary heart disease in England and Wales. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 1997;51(2):144-150. 15. Department of Health. National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease, 2001. 16. Department of Health. Exercise Referral Systems: A National Quality Assurance Framework. 2001. 17. Department of Health. Local Exercise Action Plans: www.doh.gov.uk, 2003. |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | BROWSE ARTICLES | BROWSE BY AUTHOR |