Comparing physical activity policy evaluations across 27 EU member states: Diverse indicators, inconsistent findings
- 1Physical Activity for Health Research Centre, Health Research Institute, Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Limerick, Ireland
Abstract
BackgroundPhysical inactivity remains a major public health challenge, and policy action across sectors is needed to create environments that enable active lifestyles. Several tools have been developed to evaluate national physical activity policies, but it remains unclear whether they assess similar policy aspects or produce comparable results. This study compared evaluation results across the 27 EU member states and examined the indicators used by these tools.
MethodsEight physical activity policy evaluation tools were included that (a) assess national physical activity policies and (b) had been applied in multiple countries. For five tools covering at least half of the EU member states, aggregate scores were extracted or calculated and converted into country rankings. A total of 202 indicators were coded and mapped by category (policy content, process, structure), and data type (audit, content, implementation, impact assessment).
ResultsCountry rankings varied considerably, with a mean difference of 13.0 positions between highest and lowest ranks. Some countries displayed consistent results (e.g., Austria, France, Germany), while others showed large discrepancies (e.g., Hungary, Spain). Indicator mapping revealed a focus on policy content (47.6%), followed by structure (21.6%) and process (13.7%) (6.2% other). Across tools, 20.3% of indicators audited policies, 26.0% assessed policy content, and 26.4% assessed policy implementation (16.3% other).
ConclusionThe systematic comparison of indicators across physical activity policy evaluation tools provided insights into differences in country rankings. Future evaluations should clearly communicate their purpose, identify synergies between tools, address gaps in policy evaluation, and strengthen the reproducibility of evaluation processes.
Related
- Predicting insulin resistance in non-diabetics: Comparing obesity indicators using machine learning.
- Comparing nutrition indicators in adult population monitoring systems in Italy, Estonia and Belgium
- TeleBACK clinical trial: comparing the effectiveness of telerehabilitation and in-clinic physical therapy for patients with chronic low back pain - protocol for a multicentre, pragmatic, individually randomised group treatment trial.
- Correlations between children’s Wushu participation, posture, physical fitness, and visual indicators
- Comparing Match-Related Physical Performance Using Arbitrary and Individual Running Speed, Acceleration, and Deceleration Zones in Professional Football Players (Part 1)
BibTeX
@misc{messing2026comparing,
title = {{Comparing physical activity policy evaluations across 27 EU member states: Diverse indicators, inconsistent findings}},
author = {S. Messing and A. Tcymbal and L. Birkholz and A. Bauman and S. Whiting and C. O'Hehir and C. Woods},
howpublished = {medRxiv},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.64898/2026.09.04.26361720},
url = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.04.26361720v1},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Comparing physical activity policy evaluations across 27 EU member states: Diverse indicators, inconsistent findings
AU - S. Messing
AU - A. Tcymbal
AU - L. Birkholz
AU - A. Bauman
AU - S. Whiting
AU - C. O'Hehir
AU - C. Woods
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/04
PB - medRxiv
DO - 10.64898/2026.09.04.26361720
UR - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.04.26361720v1
AB - BackgroundPhysical inactivity remains a major public health challenge, and policy action across sectors is needed to create environments that enable active lifestyles. Several tools have been developed to evaluate national physical activity policies, but it remains unclear whether they assess similar policy aspects or produce comparable results. This study compared evaluation results across the 27 EU member states and examined the indicators used by these tools. MethodsEight physical activity policy evaluation tools were included that (a) assess national physical activity policies and (b) had been applied in multiple countries. For five tools covering at least half of the EU member states, aggregate scores were extracted or calculated and converted into country rankings. A total of 202 indicators were coded and mapped by category (policy content, process, structure), and data type (audit, content, implementation, impact assessment). ResultsCountry rankings varied considerably, with a mean difference of 13.0 positions between highest and lowest ranks. Some countries displayed consistent results (e.g., Austria, France, Germany), while others showed large discrepancies (e.g., Hungary, Spain). Indicator mapping revealed a focus on policy content (47.6%), followed by structure (21.6%) and process (13.7%) (6.2% other). Across tools, 20.3% of indicators audited policies, 26.0% assessed policy content, and 26.4% assessed policy implementation (16.3% other). ConclusionThe systematic comparison of indicators across physical activity policy evaluation tools provided insights into differences in country rankings. Future evaluations should clearly communicate their purpose, identify synergies between tools, address gaps in policy evaluation, and strengthen the reproducibility of evaluation processes.
ER -