Erica Y. Lau
Maureen C. Ashe
Sharon E. Taverno Ross
Russell R. Pate- 1Department of Emergency Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
- 2Department of Family Practice, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
- 3Department of Health and Human Development, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States
- 4Department of Exercise Science, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, United States
Editorial on the Research Topic
Sustainability of physical activity interventions and public health
Physical activity is today's “best buy” in public health (1). Participation in regular physical activity could prevent and slow the progression of a wide range of non-communicable diseases, such as heart disease, stroke, diabetes and breast and colon cancer (2, 3). To obtain these health benefits, it is recommended that adults (aged 18–64 years) participate in at least 150 min/week of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity; children and adolescents aged 6 through 17 years should accumulate 60 min or more of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity daily (2, 4). Yet, 27.5% of adults and 81% of adolescents fail to meet recommended physical activity guidelines. That is, they are physically inactive (5, 6).
Physical inactivity is responsible for major health and economic burden. Globally, physical inactivity is attributed to up to 8% of deaths and non-communicable diseases and an international $ (INT$) 53.8 billion health-care systems cost (7, 8). The World Health Organization published the Global Action Plan on Physical Activity with the goal of a 15% relative reduction in the global prevalence of physical inactivity in adults and adolescents by 2030.
Action toward addressing physical inactivity is possible because there is evidence of what works. The Toronto Charter for Physical Activity outlines 7 best investments that work for physical activity, such as transport policy and systems community-wide programs (9). Over the years, evidence on effective physical activity interventions for different settings and populations has been growing. However, there has been a failure to sustain effective interventions at the population level (10). Sustainability broadly refers to continued use of program components at sufficient intensity to achieve the desired program goals and population outcomes (11). Failure to invest in sustainable interventions squanders start-up investments and prevents the realization of program benefits (12).
In the past several years, the Coronavirus (COVID-19) SARS-CoV-2 disrupted our daily routines. To contain and reduce the spread of the virus, national governments across the globe introduced various public health measures, such as social distancing and quarantine, that substantially limited opportunities for physical activity (13, 14). We witnessed the detrimental effects of physical inactivity on physical and mental health, reinforcing the urgent need to promote physical activity for population health (15). Identifying sustainable physical activity interventions and learning from their experiences has never been so important.
The aim of this Special Research Topic was to provide an opportunity to report on the latest findings for how to sustain implementation and the health impact of effective physical activity interventions. It consists of four publications, including one protocol study and three original research studies. Below, we provide a short summary for each publication.
The protocol study from Till et al. aims to use theory and frameworks to sustain two previously tested physical activity interventions in 15 new communities focusing on older adults at risk for dementia and women with difficult life situations, such as living with unemployment and/or low income. The authors will use a participatory approach to support community partners in delivering the intervention. They will evaluate outcomes guided by RE-AIM (16) and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) (17). This study provides an implementation evaluation framework, and a list of outcomes and tools for other studies to reference, adopt, test, and modify.
In the large longitudinal study by Chrismas et al., the researchers analyzed step counts from a pedometer or smartphone app from >16,000 people from Qatar during a 7-year community-based program. The two main outcomes were absolute adherence to the intervention (as a percentage of days with data over time), and retention of the intervention (length of time a participant stayed in the program, e.g., days/7 years). The authors discussed the challenges and potential strategies for sustaining usage in large-scale wearable technology-based physical activity interventions.
In the outcome evaluation of the Active Hertz program from Chater et al., the researchers shared the findings from a large, UK-based, multi-phased, longitudinal 12-month physical activity program for 717 adults at risk of cardiovascular disease. The study found that this community-based intervention with frequent behavior change training and supervision can help adults at risk of cardiovascular disease sit less and move more. The authors highlighted that funding and building capacity for physical activity in health systems (e.g., physical activity specialist) would be keys to sustaining the program at scale in “real-world” settings.
Finally, Lau et al. examined the sustained implementation of a commercial mHealth app in two Canadian provinces. In this retrospective observational study, researchers investigated real-world app usage from >41,000 adults over 12 months. This study provided empirical evidence that long-term mHealth app usage is possible and underscored the importance of considering intermittent usage patterns when designing and evaluating sustainable mhealth interventions.
Taken together, the research articles in this Special Research Topic provide some theory and frameworks to guide interventions, had large study sample sizes, ranging from 717 to >41,000 participants, and considered several equity-related factors. Findings offer insights into key factors to consider when designing and sustaining physical activity interventions; and studies discussed the challenges with intervention sustainment in “real-world” settings.
Author contributions
MA and EL drafted the editorial. SR and RP provided critical feedback on the content and organization of the editorial. All authors read and approved the submitted editorial and have agreed to be personally accountable for their contribution.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Morris JN. Exercise in the prevention of coronary heart disease: today's best buy in public health. Med Sci Sports Exerc. (1994) 26:807–14. doi: 10.1249/00005768-199407000-00001
2. Piercy KL, Troiano RP, Ballard RM, Carlson SA, Fulton JE, Galuska DA, George SM, Olson RD. The physical activity guidelines for Americans. JAMA. (2018) 320:2020–8. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.14854
3. World Health Organization. Global Action Plan on Physical Activity 2018–2030: More Active People for a Healthier world. Geneva: World Health Organization (2018).
4. Ross R, Chaput J-P, Giangregorio LM, Janssen I, Saunders TJ, Kho ME, et al. Canadian 24-hour movement guidelines for adults aged 18-64 years and adults aged 65 years or older: an integration of physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and sleep. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. (2020) 45(10 (Suppl. 2)):S57–102. doi: 10.1139/apnm-2020-0843
5. Guthold R, Stevens GA, Riley LM, Bull FC. Global trends in insufficient physical activity among adolescents: a pooled analysis of 298 population-based surveys with 1·6 million participants. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. (2020) 4:23–35. doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(19)30323-2
6. Guthold R, Stevens GA, Riley LM, Bull FC. Worldwide trends in insufficient physical activity from 2001 to 2016: a pooled analysis of 358 population-based surveys with 1.9 million participants. Lancet Glob Health. (2018) 6:e1077–86. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30357-7
7. Ding D, Lawson KD, Kolbe-Alexander TL, Finkelstein EA, Katzmarzyk PT, van Mechelen W, et al. The economic burden of physical inactivity: a global analysis of major non-communicable diseases. Lancet. (2016) 388:1311–24. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30383-X
8. Katzmarzyk PT, Friedenreich C, Shiroma EJ, Lee IM. Physical inactivity and non-communicable disease burden in low-income, middle-income and high-income countries. Br J Sports Med. (2022) 56:101. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-103640
9. Global Advocacy for Physical Activity (GAPA) the Advocay Council of the International Society for Physical Activity and Health (ISPHA). NCD prevention: investments that work for physical activity. Br J Sports Med. (2012) 46:709–12. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2012.091485
10. Reis RS, Salvo D, Ogilvie D, Lambert EV, Goenka S, Brownson RC. Scaling up physical activity interventions worldwide: stepping up to larger and smarter approaches to get people moving. Lancet. (2016) 388:1337–48. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30728-0
11. Shelton RC, Cooper BR, Stirman SW. The sustainability of evidence-based interventions and practices in public health and health care. Annu Rev Public Health. (2018) 39:55–76. doi: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-014731
12. Shediac-Rizkallah MC, Bone LR. Planning for the sustainability of community-based health programs: conceptual frameworks and future directions for research, practice and policy. Health Educ Res. (1998) 13:87–108. doi: 10.1093/her/13.1.87
13. Castañeda-Babarro A, Arbillaga-Etxarri A, Gutiérrez-Santamaría B, Coca A. Physical activity change during COVID-19 confinement. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2020) 17:6878. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17186878
14. Maugeri G, Castrogiovanni P, Battaglia G, Pippi R, D'Agata V, Palma A, et al. The impact of physical activity on psychological health during COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. Heliyon. (2020) 6:e04315. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04315
15. Tison GH, Avram R, Kuhar P, Abreau S, Marcus GM, Pletcher MJ, et al. Worldwide effect of COVID-19 on physical activity: a descriptive study. Ann Intern Med. (2020) 173:767–70. doi: 10.7326/M20-2665
16. Glasgow RE, Harden SM, Gaglio B, Rabin B, Smith ML, Porter GC, et al. RE-AIM planning and evaluation framework: adapting to new science and practice with a 20-year review. Front Public Health. (2019) 7:64. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00064
Keywords: physical activity, implementation science, health promotion (HP), sustainability, maintenance
Citation: Lau EY, Ashe MC, Ross SET and Pate RR (2022) Editorial: Sustainability of physical activity interventions and public health. Front. Public Health 10:1115411. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1115411
Received: 03 December 2022; Accepted: 09 December 2022;
Published: 21 December 2022.
Edited and reviewed by: Christiane Stock, Charité Medical University of Berlin, Germany
Copyright © 2022 Lau, Ashe, Ross and Pate. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Erica Y. Lau, 
erica.lau@ubc.ca