ArticleHealth research policy and systems2016
Cross-sector cooperation in health-enhancing physical activity policymaking: more potential than achievements?
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- The complexity of leadership in coproduction practices: a guiding framework based on a systematic literature review.BMC health services research · 2024Pooled it
- Sitting still while the world gets sicker: Rethinking physical inactivity as a public health emergency.BMC global and public health · 2026Review
- A comparative document analysis of national policies on physical activity among South East Asian region countries.Discover public health · 2026Article
- The practice of public health coordination in Sweden: roles, responsibilities, and realities.Health promotion international · 2025Article
- Policy texts and actions: quantitative evaluation of the hierarchical medical system policy in China based on the PMC-Index model.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Towards an inclusive Open Science: examining EDI and public participation in policy documents across Europe and the Americas.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Physical activity-the past, present and potential future: a state-of-the-art review.Health promotion international · 2025Review
- What Policies Do Local Governments Use to Promote Physical Activity? A Comparative Analysis of Municipalities From 4 EU Countries and Japan.International journal of health policy and management · 2025Article
- Comprehensive assessment of physical activity policies and initiatives in Saudi Arabia 2016-2022.Frontiers in public health · 2023Review
- Cross-sector co-creation of a community-based physical activity program for breast cancer survivors in Colombia.Health promotion international · 2022Article
- Promoting health-enhancing physical activity in Europe: Surveillance, policy development and implementation 2015-2018.Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2021Article
- Multisectoral action for health in low-income and middle-income settings: how can insights from social science theories inform intragovernmental coordination efforts?BMJ global health · 2021Review
- The impact of governance in primary health care delivery: a systems thinking approach with a European panel.Health research policy and systems · 2019Article
- A global systematic scoping review of studies analysing indicators, development, and content of national-level physical activity and sedentary behaviour policies.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2018Article
- Contextually tailored interventions can increase evidence-informed policy-making on health-enhancing physical activity: the experiences of two Danish municipalities.Health research policy and systems · 2018Article
- Developing a policy game intervention to enhance collaboration in public health policymaking in three European countries.BMC public health · 2017Article
- Improving health promotion through central rating of interventions: the need for Responsive Guidance.Health research policy and systems · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe cooperation of actors across policy fields and the need for cross-sector cooperation as well as recommendations on how to implement cross-sector cooperation have been addressed in many national and international policies that seek to solve complex issues within societies. For such a purpose, the relevant governance structure between policy sectors is cross-sector cooperation. Therefore, cross-sector cooperation and its structures need to be better understood for improved implementation. This article reports on the governance structures and processes of cross-sector cooperation in health-enhancing physical activity (HEPA) policies in six European Union (EU) member states.
methodsQualitative content analysis of HEPA policies and semi-structured interviews with key policymakers in six European countries.
resultsCross-sector cooperation varied between EU member states within HEPA policies. The main issues of the cross-sector policy process can be divided into stakeholder involvement, governance structures and coordination structures and processes. Stakeholder involvement included citizen hearings and gatherings of stakeholders from various non-governmental organisations and citizen groups. Governance structures with policy and political discussions included committees, working groups and consultations for HEPA policymaking. Coordination structures and processes included administrative processes with various stakeholders, such as ministerial departments, research institutes and private actors for HEPA policymaking. Successful cross-sector cooperation required joint planning and evaluation, financial frameworks, mandates based on laws or agreed methods of work, communication lines, and valued processes of cross-sector cooperation.
conclusionsCross-sector cooperation required participation with the co-production of goals and sharing of resources between stakeholders, which could, for example, provide mechanisms for collaborative decision-making through citizen hearing. Clearly stated responsibilities, goals, communication, learning and adaptation for cross-sector cooperation improve success. Specific resources allocated for cross-sector cooperation could enhance the empowerment of stakeholders, management of processes and outcomes of cross-sector cooperation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.