| Autor: |
Oliver EJ; Department of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Durham University, UK., Buckley B; Liverpool Centre for Cardiovascular Science, University of Liverpool and Liverpool Heart & Chest Hospital, Liverpool, UK., Dodd-Reynolds CJ; Department of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Durham University, UK.; Durham Research Methods Centre, Durham University, UK., Downey J; Sport, Health, and Wellbeing, Plymouth Marjon University, UK., Hanson C; School of Health and Social Care, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK., Henderson H; School of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Lincoln, UK., Hawkins J; DECIPHer, School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University, UK., Steele J; Faculty of Sport, Health, and Social Sciences, Solent University, Southampton, UK.; ukactive Research Institute, London, UK., Wade M; ukactive Research Institute, London, UK., Watson PM; Physical Activity Exchange, Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, UK. |
| Abstrakt: |
Despite widespread use, community-based physical activity prescription is controversial. Data limitations have resulted in a lack of clarity about what works, under what circumstances, and for whom, reflected in conservative policy recommendations. In this commentary we challenge a predominantly negative discourse, using contemporary research to highlight promising findings and "lessons learnt" for design, delivery, and evaluation. In doing so, we argue for the importance of a more nuanced approach to future commissioning and evaluation. Novelty: Amalgamating learning from multiple research teams to create recommendations for advancing physical activity prescription. |
