Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41415853›Full record

ArticleJournal of health monitoring2025

Physical activity and physical activity promotion in Germany - An overview.

Sven Messing, Leonie Birkholz, Julian Resch, Johannes Brandl, Eva Lorenz, Karim Abu-Omar, Wolfgang Geidl, Antonina Tcymbal, Peter Gelius, Klaus Pfeifer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of health monitoring, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Sven MessingUniversity of Limerick, Physical Activity for Health Research Centre, Health Research Institute, Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Limerick, Ireland.
Leonie BirkholzFriedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Department of Sport Science and Sport, Erlangen, Germany.
Julian ReschFriedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Department of Sport Science and Sport, Erlangen, Germany.
Johannes BrandlFriedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Department of Sport Science and Sport, Erlangen, Germany.
Eva LorenzFriedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Department of Sport Science and Sport, Erlangen, Germany.
Karim Abu-OmarFriedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Department of Sport Science and Sport, Erlangen, Germany.
Wolfgang GeidlFriedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Department of Sport Science and Sport, Erlangen, Germany.
Antonina TcymbalFriedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Department of Sport Science and Sport, Erlangen, Germany.
Peter GeliusUniversity of Lausanne, Institute of Sports Science, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Klaus PfeiferFriedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Department of Sport Science and Sport, Erlangen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: 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.

Indexed as

EffectivenessEvaluationGood practiceIntegrated knowledge translationPhysical activityPhysical activity promotionReach

Identifiers

PMID41415853
PMCPMC12709637

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.