ArticleJournal of health monitoring2025
Physical activity and physical activity promotion in Germany - An overview.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Physical activity promotion among older adults in community settings: structures, implementation barriers and the role of political narratives].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.