Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | |
|
WR1_1_3: Abstract presentations: Equity and Inclusion in Physical Activity and Health Location: White room 1 Session Chair: Evan Matthews | |
    | |
3:20pm - 3:30pm
Mechanisms shaping inequity in physical activity-related policy systems: an expert-based conceptual systems model 1: Amsterdam UMC, The Netherlands; 2: University of Limerick, Ireland; 3: FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany; 4: University Babes-Bolyai, Romania Background Public policies can promote equitable opportunities for physical activity (PA) and reduce socioeconomic inequities in PA. However, many fail to achieve this. A systems perspective is needed to capture complex, dynamic, and non-linear interactions within policy environments affecting PA inequity. Purpose Using a systems approach, we aimed to 1) understand how policy structures contribute to socioeconomic inequities in PA, and 2) identify system archetypes explaining the system. Methods Two workshop rounds with equity experts were conducted. In round one (N=11), a problem-solution tree approach identified system-level drivers underlying inequity in PA policy. Drivers were organised into subsystems using Physical Activity-Environment Policy Index (PA-EPI) domains. In round two, these factors were reviewed and relationships explored using group model building. Following the workshops, a causal loop diagram was developed, and system archetypes were identified. Findings were validated with participants through e-mail and phone. Results Workshop one identified 45 drivers including reliance on short-term policies, underrepresentation of low-SES groups in policy processes, emphasis on performance-driven policies, strength of policy accountability, and commercial influence. Examples of archetypes are: ‘Fixes That Fail’: where short-term policies fail to address structural barriers for low-SES groups; and ‘Success to the Successful’: where limited mechanisms for low-SES engagement in scientific agendas and policy dialogue lead to policies favouring groups with greater voice. Conclusions Socioeconomic inequities in PA are reinforced by systemic dynamics within policy processes. Focusing on structural solutions, rather than short-term ‘quick fix’ policies, and increasing the representation of low-SES groups in policy processes may help create more equitable outcomes. | |
