Skip to main content

Table 1 Criteria for successful national physical activity policy [HARDWIRED]

From: The rise and fall of Australian physical activity policy 1996 – 2006: a national review framed in an international context

1. Highly consultative in development

Thorough stakeholder analysis and needs assessment is used to determine and drive appropriate consultations at an early stage and during the policy development process; it engages 'grassroots' practitioners as well as strategic policymakers, and defines their organisational linkages and relevance to the physical activity agenda;

2. Active through multi-strategic, multi-level, partnerships

Progression of policy through coalitions and partnerships (e.g. across government sectors, non government agencies as well as the private sector); a comprehensive approach using multiple strategies (individual-oriented behaviour change, environmental-focused interventions, mass media campaigns) at multiple levels (local, state, national level) and targeting multiple population groups (e.g. children, adolescents, women, older adults, disabled people, indigenous people);

3. Resourced adequately

There is a stable base of political and stakeholder support, an adequate capacity to implement strategies across the sectors as well as an adequate, sustained investment to implement the policy over the long term;

4. Developed in stand-alone and synergistic policy modes

A clear 'stand-alone'/single issue physical activity policy statement is developed accompanied by several related strands of physical activity policy embedded within other related agendas (e.g. in the fields of health, nutrition and obesity, education, transport, urban planning, greenhouse energy management) to achieve synergistic policy impacts;

5. Widely communicated

Clear identification and communication of the policy is achieved through marketing and by tailoring of communication styles to match a specific market segmentation (e.g. politicians, senior bureaucrats, researchers, community based practitioners, general public);

6. Independently evaluated

There is a specific plan to evaluate the implementation (process), impact (short term results) and outcomes (longer term results) of the policy; the evaluation is ideally conducted independently of government and of the policy 'owners';

7. Role-clarified and performance-delineated

Roles and responsibilities of agencies involved in policy implementation are well clarified (e.g. lead agency, supporting agency, consulting agency) and there is common understanding of and agreement on how 'successful implementation' is to be defined and measured (e.g. 'smart' performance indicators incorporating measurable targets, achievement criteria, timeframes);

8. Evidence-informed and Evidence-generating

Systematic surveillance of population physical activity; evaluation of innovative programs; policy-relevant syntheses of epidemiological and other relevant evidence (e.g. trends, priority populations, activity preferences, evaluation findings) disseminated in formats accessible by the target audiences; and

9. Defined national guidelines for health enhancing physical activity

Dissemination of National guidelines for health enhancing physical activity that are developmentally and age-appropriate (e.g. children and adolescents, adults, older adults). It may also seek to define physical activity guidelines in relation to specific diseases and conditions (e.g. for the management/prevention of type 2 diabetes, or for the prevention of certain cancers and cardiovascular disease). These detailed 'prescriptions' lend themselves to individual communication and typically in the primary care setting; specific (e.g. Cancer, Heart, Diabetes) non-government organisations can play a useful role in leading the production of this guidance.