ANNUAL CONFERENCE & MEETING OF HEPA EUROPE
SPARColl will host the annual conference and meeting of HEPA Europe in Glasgow from 8-10 September 2008.
HEPA Europe is the European network for the promotion of health-enhancing physical activity. It is an international collaborative project which works for better health through physical activity among all people in the WHO European Region, by strengthening and supporting efforts to increase participation and improve the conditions for healthy lifestyles.
HEPA Europe is holding annual meetings. This year the meeting includes the first annual conference with a particular emphasis on walking (8-9 September). The conference features key note speeches, symposia and poster sessions. It is followed by the 4th annual meeting of the network on 10 September, including a review of the work programme, inplementation and presentations of project results, discussing the next work programme, membership applications and funding. The annual meeting on 10 September is open to everyone (not just members of HEPA Europe).
To access the conference information document please click here. This document includes details of how to get to the venue, the social programme etc.
Download a copy of the HEPA Europe Conference Flyer.
Plenary Abstracts
Sally MacIntyre: Who you are or where you are? Social and Spatial Patterning of Health
In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries public heath activities were
directed towards damaging aspects of the physical environment (polluted air
and water, unsanitary housing etc). From the mid twentieth century, with the
increasing importance of chronic diseases, more public health attention was
given to individuals' behaviours and lifestyles, and more recently to
aspects of the social environment such as social capital. This lecture will
discuss how individual and environmental factors, and interactions between
them, might influence patterns of population health.
Jim Sallis: Built Environments, Physical Activity, and Health: Using Research to Guide
Policy
There is substantial evidence that built environments play a role in shaping
physical activity, obesity, and other health outcomes. Recent studies are
examining how these factors may work differently in various population
subgroups and identifying specific environmental attributes that may be most
promising to target for change. For the research to lead to public health
impact, policy changes will be required to alter built environments.
Researchers around the world are gaining expertise about policy change,
developing relationships with advocacy groups, and taking more active roles
in using research to guide policy. This presentation will present examples
of this work and make recommendations for improving our impact.
Matthew Lowther, Nanette Mutrie, Kenny Steele: The Scottish Perspective
Scotland is one of the few countries to have a government strategy concerned with the promotion of physical activity. The strategy became policy in 2003 and is entitled ‘Let’s make Scotland more active’. The strategy can be accessed electronically at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2003/02/16324/17895. The strategy recommended that Scotland should have a national physical activity co-ordinator and the current post holder is Dr Mathew Lowther. Dr Lowther will open this session by providing an overview of the strategy and the current plan for promoting physical activity in Scotland. Professor Mutrie will follow with an overview of the Scottish Physical Activity Research Collaboration (www.sparcoll.org.uk) which was funded, as a direct result of the strategy, to increase the evidence base in relation to the promotion of physical activity. The final section of this session will be presented by Mr Kenny Steele who manages the Paths to Health programme (www.pathsforall.org.uk/pathstohealth). This programme is seen as a key delivery mechanism of the Scottish strategy and aims to promote walking for health across Scotland.
Billie Giles-Corti: Creating Walkable Environments: Does one size fit all?
In the last decade there has been growing recognition that the urban environment influences health. The design of neighbourhoods and public open space design as well as the provision of transit are associated with levels of walking, cycling and use of public transport. Conversely, low-density, automobile dependent suburbs discourage non-motorised forms of transport and the use and provision of public transport. Nevertheless, how to optimize urban environment from a health perspective and to meet the needs of different population groups (e.g., children and young people, older adults, those with disabilities, as well as the general public), has been largely unexplored. The evidence suggests that walkable neighbourhoods increases walking in able-bodied adults, but does this hold true for children and older adults? Moreover, what will be the impact of these environments on recreational walking? Will increased housing density produce other unintended negative consequences such as social or mental health problems? As the field advances and policy-makers and practitioners push towards policy, we need to be cognizant of the complexities and consider the pre-conditions for creating pedestrian (and cycling) friendly environments that cater for multiple users throughout the life course. As the evidence-base develops, this talk seeks to consider some of these complexities with the aim of helping to advance the research, policy and practice agendas.
Pekka Oja: New physical activity recommendations and guidelines: messages to different stakeholders
Systematic collection and analysis of the scientific evidence on the health effects of physical activity led to the landmark physical activity recommendation for public health by the U.S. Centre for Disease Control and Prevention and American College of Sports Medicine in 1995: “Every US adult should accumulate 30 minutes or more of moderate-intensity physical activity on most, preferably all, days of the week”. This recommendation introduced the moderate-intensity physical activity concept leading to the inclusion of many lifestyle activities as health-enhancing physical activity. Subsequently this recommendation has been adopted widely throughout the world. In Europe, according to a recent WHO Regional Office inventory, 21 countries have issued basically similar recommendations.
The most recent physical activity recommendations for adults and older adults were issued by the American College of Sport Medicine and the American Heart Association in 2007. They differ from the 1995 recommendation in that either moderate-intensity or vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity or their combination is recommended. They also include specific recommendations for musculoskeletal health. The key message in these recommendations is that while moderate amounts of physical activity is good for many people’s health more and more vigorous activity is even better.
Based on the individually-oriented physical activity recommendations several policy guidelines how to promote physical activity for public health have recently been presented. The European Union’s white papers on Diet and Physical Activity and on Sport provide guidance on how the Union and the member states should take action in promoting physical activity for public health. Most recently the Sport Unit of the European Commission is about to issue the EU Physical Activity Guidelines. These policy-oriented guidelines call for actions not only the physical activity and public health communities but also a wide range of other stakeholders in education, urban planning and architecture, transport, environment and sport. These multi- and cross-sectoral actions are expected to introduce new approaches for the promotion of health-enhancing physical activity.
Adrian Bauman: Policy approaches to physical activity - the mysteries of politics or an advocacy opportunity
Policy approaches are important to promoting physical activity, and are considered an essential component of an integrated national or regional physical activity strategy. The provide resources that underpin the development of physical activity guidelines, a strategic framework being developed, programs delivered, and monitoring and surveillance systems established (1). Essentially, this is seen as a rational sequence of steps that can be mapped in program planning and through logic models. The policy advocacy tasks are getting the issue of inactivity on the decision-makers agenda, and identifying the health and other sector benefits, including economic, health cost savings, and social benefits, and then proposing a strategic plan comprised of evidence based interventions to increase physical activity. This sequence seldom operates in a linear manner, and the mechanisms through which governments and agencies support and invest in physical activity programs remains obscure. Political factors, media pressures, trends in community ‘issues’, and economic forces all influence the translation of evidence into policy.
Case studies from different countries are used to illustrate the variegated nature of physical activity policy, how it has been developed, and how it evolves, devolves and mutates over time. These case studies include the cyclical sport policy frameworks around Olympic Games and Mega-events; the “ParticipACTION legacy and future in Canada, and the sequence of interagency marriages and divorces that have characterized a decade of inter-sectoral policy in Australia [2]. In developing and transitional countries, physical activity policy has evolved in fragmented ways, seeking refuge within cardiovascular , diabetes or obesity prevention frameworks; it seldom develops as a stand-alone policy, and rarely co-exists in concert with Sport, Education, urban planning and transport sectors.
A re-consideration of physical activity policy suggests that it is a more random set of political processes, which mey be influenced by targeted physical activity advocacy. These include within-sector advocacy, between-sector discussions, the use of ‘media advocacy’ and the use of opportunistic advocacy to influence decision makers. The ‘Trojan horse’ approach, that, for example, may utilize current obesity preoccupations of many governments, can be used to indirectly support physical activity program development. These more radical approaches may be necessary to position physical activity commensurate with its potential contributions to health, disease prevention, and social and community well-being.
[1] Public Health Rep. 2004;119(3):346-51.
[2] Aust NZ Journal of Health policy [in press]