Zur Kurzanzeige

2025-11-26Zeitschriftenartikel DOI: 10.25646/13557
Physical activity and physical activity promotion in Germany – An overview
dc.contributor.authorMessing, Sven
dc.contributor.authorBirkholz, Leonie
dc.contributor.authorResch, Julian
dc.contributor.authorBrandl, Johannes
dc.contributor.authorLorenz, Eva
dc.contributor.authorAbu-Omar, Karim
dc.contributor.authorGeidl, Wolfgang
dc.contributor.authorTcymbal, Antonia
dc.contributor.authorGelius, Peter
dc.contributor.authorPfeifer, Klaus
dc.date.accessioned2025-11-26T12:13:06Z
dc.date.available2025-11-26T12:13:06Z
dc.date.issued2025-11-26none
dc.identifier.urihttp://edoc.rki.de/176904/13087
dc.description.abstractBackground: Regular physical activity is essential for health, yet a large proportion of the German population remains inactive, with significant health and economic consequences. As physical activity promotion spans multiple settings and political sectors, systematic overviews of available data on behaviour and promotion practices are often lacking. Methods: This article draws on four policy briefs on physical activity promotion in Germany published by the Federal Ministry of Health (2022 – 2024). Data on physical activity behaviour (secondary analysis) and promotion practices across sectors (mixed methods approach) were analysed. A distinction was made between good practice (projects with proven effectiveness) and routine practice (large-scale programmes). Results: Between 1993 and 2024, eleven institutions from different political sectors collected data on physical activity behaviour in 23 larger studies. Current data show lower activity levels among older adults, women, socioeconomically disadvantaged groups, and individuals living with a non-communicable disease. In total, 43 good practice projects and 88 routine practice measures were identified. While all good practice projects demonstrated effectiveness, this was true for only 11 % of routine practices. Good practice projects were less likely to reach at least 100,000 people (12 %) compared to routine practice (25 %), and were more often limited to less than five years (33 % vs. 9 %). Conclusions: Physical activity promotion is an intersectoral challenge requiring stronger structures and shared responsibility. To increase population-level impact, the reach of good practice should be expanded and the effectiveness of routine practice evaluated more systematically. The planned establishment of a National Competence Centre for Physical Activity Promotion offers a key opportunity to advance these goals.ger
dc.language.isoengnone
dc.publisherRobert Koch-Institut
dc.rights(CC BY 3.0 DE) Namensnennung 3.0 Deutschlandger
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/de/
dc.subjectPhysical activityeng
dc.subjectPhysical activity promotioneng
dc.subjectGood practiceeng
dc.subjectEffectivenesseng
dc.subjectEvaluationeng
dc.subjectIntegrated knowledge translationeng
dc.subject.ddc610 Medizin und Gesundheitnone
dc.titlePhysical activity and physical activity promotion in Germany – An overviewnone
dc.typearticle
dc.identifier.urnurn:nbn:de:0257-176904/13087-8
dc.identifier.doi10.25646/13557
local.edoc.container-titleJournal of Health Monitoringnone
local.edoc.pages13none
local.edoc.type-nameZeitschriftenartikel
local.edoc.container-typeperiodical
local.edoc.container-type-nameZeitschrift
dc.description.versionPeer Reviewednone

Zur Kurzanzeige