Search Results

Albert Einstein taught us that “everything is relative.” People’s experience of physical activity (PA) is no different, with “relativism” particularly pertinent to the perception of intensity. Markers of absolute and relative intensities of PA have different but complimentary utilities, with absolute intensity considered best for PA guideline adherence and relative intensity for personalized exercise prescription. Under the paradigm of exercise and PA as medicine, our Technical Note proposes a method of synchronizing accelerometry with the incremental shuttle walking test to facilitate description of the intensity of the free-living PA profile in absolute and relative terms. Our approach is able to generate and distinguish “can do” or “cannot do” (based on exercise capacity) and “does do” or “does not do” (based on relative intensity PA) classifications in a chronic respiratory disease population, facilitating the selection of potential appropriate individually tailored interventions. By synchronizing direct assessments of exercise capacity and PA, clearer insights into the intensity of PA performed during everyday life can be gleaned. We believe the next steps are as follows: (1) to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of using relative and absolute intensities in combination to personalize the approach, (2) to determine its sensitivity to change following interventions (eg, exercise-based rehabilitation), and (3) to explore the use of this approach in healthier populations and in other long-term conditions.

Background: There is limited understanding of the challenges experienced and supports required to aid effective advocacy of the Global Action Plan on Physical Activity (GAPPA). The purpose of this study was to assess the challenges experienced and supports needed to advocate for the GAPPA across countries of different income levels. Methods: Stakeholders working in an area related to the promotion of physical activity were invited to complete an online survey. The survey assessed current awareness and engagement with the GAPPA, factors related to advocacy, and the perceived challenges and supports related to advocacy for implementation of the GAPPA. Closed questions were analyzed in SPSS, with a Pearson’s chi-square test used to assess differences between country income level. Open questions were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: Participants (n = 518) from 81 countries completed the survey. Significant differences were observed between country income level for awareness of the GAPPA and perceived country engagement with the GAPPA. Challenges related to advocacy included a lack of support and engagement, resources, priority, awareness, advocacy education and training, accessibility, and local application. Supports needed for future advocacy included guidance and support, cooperation and alliance, advocacy education and training, and advocacy resources. Conclusions: Although stakeholders from different country income levels experience similar advocacy challenges and required supports, how countries experience these can be distinct. This research has highlighted some specific ways in which those involved in the promotion of physical activity can be supported to scale up advocacy for the GAPPA. When implementing such supports, consideration of regional, geographic, and cultural barriers and opportunities is important to ensure they are effective and equitable.