↓ Skip to main content

An evaluation of equity and equality in physical activity policies in four European countries

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal for Equity in Health, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
163 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An evaluation of equity and equality in physical activity policies in four European countries
Published in
International Journal for Equity in Health, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12939-016-0481-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Riitta-Maija Hämäläinen, Petru Sandu, Ahmed M. Syed, Mette W. Jakobsen

Abstract

There is strong research evidence on the importance of health equity and equality for wellbeing in societies. As chronic non-communicable diseases are widespread, the positive impact of physical activity (PA) on health has gained importance. However, PA at the population level is far from optimal. PA depends not only on individual factors, but also on policies for PA in sport, health, transport, education and other sectors, on social and cultural factors, and on the environment. Addressing health inequalities and inequities in PA promotion policies could benefit from policy development processes based on partnership and collaboration between various sectors, researchers, practitioners and policy makers (= cross-sectoral, evidence-informed policy making). The objective of this article is to describe how equity and equality was addressed in PA policies in four EU member states (Denmark, Finland, Romania and England), who were partners in the REPOPA project ( www.repopa.eu , EC/FP7/Health Research/GA 281532). Content analysis of 14 PA policies and 61 interviews were undertaken between 2012 and 2013 with stakeholders involved in developing PA policies in partner countries. Even though specific population subgroups were mentioned in the policy documents analysed, they were not necessarily defined as vulnerable populations nor was there a mention of additional emphasis to support such groups from being marginalised by the policy due to inequity or inequality. There were no clear objectives and activities in the analysed policies suggesting commitment of additional resources in favour of such groups. Addressing equity and equality were often not included in the core aims of the policies analysed; these aspects were mentioned in the background of the policy documents analysed, without being explicitly stated in the aims or activities of the policies. In order to tackle health inequities and inequalities and their consequences on the health status of different population subgroups, a more instrumental approach to health equality and equity in PA promotion policies is needed. Policies should include aims to address health inequalities and inequities as fundamental objectives and also consider opportunities to allocate resources to reduce them for identified groups in this regard: the socially excluded, the remote, and the poor. The inclusion of aspects related to health inequalities and inequities in PA policies needs monitoring, evaluation and transparent accountability if we are to see the best gains in health of socially disadvantaged group. To tackle health inequities and inequalities governance structures need to take into consideration proportionate universalism. Thus, to achieve change in the social determinants of health, policy makers should pay attention to PA and proportionally invest for universal access to PA services. PA promotion advocates should develop a deeper awareness of political and policy structures and require more equity and equality in PA policies from those who they seek to influence, within specific settings for policy making and developing the policy agenda.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 163 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 14%
Researcher 22 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 8%
Student > Bachelor 10 6%
Other 25 15%
Unknown 56 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 23 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 8%
Sports and Recreations 10 6%
Psychology 9 6%
Other 27 17%
Unknown 59 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 January 2017.
All research outputs
#14,871,791
of 22,903,988 outputs
Outputs from International Journal for Equity in Health
#1,494
of 1,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,880
of 415,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal for Equity in Health
#33
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,903,988 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,915 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 415,133 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.