Aims: This study aims to identify physical inactivity-related challenges and motives, based on reviews and supplemented by expert interviews with Danish national experts on physical inactivity, providing a general discussion of the subject ultimately generating knowledge useable in a Scandinavian context. Methods: This study is framed as a narrative review of scientific review literature on physical inactivity, limited to the general population. The review is supplemented by expert interviews with Danish national experts on physical inactivity. We used thematic coding of the included reviews, while using hermeneutic interpretation analysis for the expert interviews. Results: Based on 11 included reviews, we highlighted four themes based on our analysis of reviews: (a) socioeconomic determinants of physical activity; (b) life-course perspective; (c) physical inactivity and older adults aged 60+ years; and (d) intervention recommendations. The supplementary expert interviews revealed three additional themes: (a) the individual history with physical activity; (b) sporting organisation importance; and (c) society responsibility for physical inactivity. Conclusions: Collectively this study concludes, based on review and expert interviews, that a number of determinants and correlations for physical inactivity affect the individual from various socioecological levels. Based on this review, we suggest moving beyond the ‘upstream’ public health approach of randomised controlled trials and consider complex interventions targeting physical inactivity from several levels. Physical inactivity should be acknowledged as a ‘wicked problem’ that requires a systems-based approach instead of a single quick fix. Future work with physical inactivity would profit from focus on the life-course perspective, sporting clubs’ responsiveness and physical literacy.
World Health Organization. Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health. Geneva: WHO, 2010.
2.
The Danish Health Authority. Danskernes Sundhed – Den Nationale Sundhedsprofil 2017 [Health of the Danes – The national health profile 2017]. Copenhagen: The Danish Health Authority, 2018.
3.
PilgaardMRaskS. Danskernes motionsvaner og sportsvaner 2016. [The Danes habits on sport and exercise]. Copenhagen: The Danish Institute for Sports Studies, 2016.
4.
JuelKSørensenJBrønnum-HansenH. Risikofaktorer og Folkesundhed i Danmark. [Risk factors and puc health in Denmark]. Copenhagen: National Institute for Public Health, 2006.
5.
EriksenLDavidsenMJensenH, et al. Sygdomsbyrden i Danmark – Risikofaktorer. [Illnesses in Denmark – risk factors]. Copenhagen: National Institute for Public Health, University of Sourtern Denmark, 2016.
6.
KiensBBeyerNBrageS, et al. Fysisk Inaktivitet – Konsekvenser og Sammenhænge. [Physical inactivity – Consequences and connections]. Copenhagen: The Danish Counsil on Exercise and Nutrition; 2007.
7.
The Danish Health Authority. Forebyggelsespakke Fysisk Aktivitet. [Health promotion and physical activity]. Copenhagen: The Danish Health Authority, 2018.
8.
AllenderSHutchinsonLFosterC. Life-change events and participation in physical activity: a systematic review. Health Promot Int2008;23:160–172.
9.
CaperchioneCMKoltGSMummeryWK. Physical activity in culturally and linguistically diverse migrant groups to Western society: a review of barriers, enablers and experiences. Sports Med2009;39:167–177.
10.
KirkMARhodesRE. Occupation correlates of adults’ participation in leisure-time physical activity: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med2011;40:476–485.
11.
EngbergEAlenMKukkonen-HarjulaK, et al. Life events and change in leisure time physical activity: a systematic review. Sports Med2012;42:433–447.
12.
LangøienLJTerragniLRugsethG, et al. Systematic mapping review of the factors influencing physical activity and sedentary behaviour in ethnic minority groups in Europe: a DEDIPAC study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act2017;14:99.
13.
ElhakeemACooperRBannD, et al. Childhood socioeconomic position and adult leisure-time physical activity: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act2015;12:92.
14.
BaumanAReisRSallisJ, et al.; for the Lancet Physical Activity Series Working Group. Correlates of physical activity: why are some people physically active and others not?Lancet2012;380:258–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60735-1
15.
KvaleSBrinkmannS. Interview, 3rd ed.Copenhagen: Hans Reitzel, 2015.
16.
HigginsJPTThomasJChandlerJ, et al. (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, version 6.2 (updated February2021). Cochrane Training, 2021. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook (accessed 27 August 2021).
JaeschkeLSteinbrecherALuzakA, et al. Socio-cultural determinants of physical activity across the life course: a ‘Determinants of Diet and Physical Activity’ (DEDIPAC) umbrella systematic literature review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act2017;14:173.
24.
Bellows-RieckenKHRhodesRE. A birth of inactivity? A review of physical activity and parenthood. Prev Med2008;46:99–110.
25.
FrancoMRTongAHowardK, et al. Older people’s perspectives on participation in physical activity: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative literature. Br J Sports Med2015;49:1268–1276.
26.
GeorgeESKoltGSDuncanMJ, et al. A review of the effectiveness of physical activity interventions for adult males. Sports Med2012;42:281–300.
27.
BockCJarczokMNLitakerD. Community-based efforts to promote physical activity: a systematic review of interventions considering mode of delivery, study quality and population subgroups. J Sci Med Sport2014;17:276–282.
28.
DahlgrenGWhiteheadM. 1991. Policies and strategies to promote social equity in health. Institute for Future Studies. 1991. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6472456.pdf (accessed 1 August 2020).
29.
McLeroyKRBibeauDStecklerA, et al. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Quarterly1988;15:351–377.
30.
HuilanXuWenLMRisselC. Associations of parental influences with physical activity and screen time among young children: a systematic review. J Obesity2015;2015:546925. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/546925
31.
WikmanJMElsborgPNielsenG, et al. Are team sport games more motivating than individual exercise for middle-aged women? A comparison of levels of motivation associated with participating in floorball and spinning. Kinesiology2018;50:34–42; 6391.
32.
NielsenGWikmanJMJensenCJ, et al. Health promotion: the impact of beliefs of health benefits, social relations and enjoyment on exercise continuation. Scand J Med Sci Sports2014;24(Suppl. 1):66–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12275
33.
BaileyRWhiteheadM. Physical literacy across the lifespan. London: Routledge, 2010.
34.
KeeganRJBarnettLMDudleyDA, et al. Defining physical literacy for application in Australia: a modified delphi method. J Teaching Phys Educ2019;38:105–118. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2018-0264
35.
CairneyJDudleyDKwanM, et al. Physical literacy, physical activity and health: toward an evidence-informed conceptual model. Sports Med2019;49:371–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01063-3
36.
TremblayMSCostas-BradstreetCBarnesJD, et al. Canada’s physical literacy consensus statement: process and outcome. BMC Public Health2018;18:1034. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5903-x
37.
DingDRamirez VarelaABaumanAE, et al. Towards better evidence-informed global action: lessons learnt from the Lancet series and recent developments in physical activity and public health. Br J Sports Med. Epub ahead of print 2019. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2019-101001
38.
CraigPDieppePMacintyreS, et al. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. Int J Nursing Studies2013;50:587–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.09.010
39.
JervelundSVinther-JensenKRyomK, et al. Recommendations for ethnic equity in health: a Delphi study from Denmark. Scand J Public Health (in press).
40.
BreuerCFeilerSLlopis-GoigR, et al. Characteristics of European sports clubs. Centre for Sports, Health and Civil Society2017;69–70.
MadsenMElbeAMMadsenEEErmidisGRyomKWikmanJMRasmussen LindRLarsenMNKrustrupP. The “11 for Health in Denmark” intervention in 10- to 12-year-old Danish girls and boys and its effects on well-being-A large-scale cluster RCT. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2020Sep;30(9):1787–1795. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.13704. Epub 2020 May 27. PMID: 32353906.
43.
AgergaardS. Rethinking sports and integration. London: Routledge, 2018.
44.
AabyASimonsenCBRyomK, et al. Improving organizational health literacy responsiveness in cardiac rehabilitation using a co-design methodology: results from the Heart Skills Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health2020;17:1015. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17031015
45.
IUHPE Position Statement on Health Literacy: a practical vision for a health literate world. Global Health Promotion, 2018;25(4):79–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1757975918814421
46.
VallgårdaS. Public health policies: a Scandinavian model?Scand J Public Health2007;35:205–211.
AllenderSBrownABoltonK, et al. Translating systems thinking into practice for community action on childhood obesity. Obesity Rev2019;20:179–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12865
49.
BaethgeCGoldbeck-WoodSMertensS. SANRA – a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles. Res Integr Peer Rev2019;4:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0064-8
50.
Fusar-PoliPRaduaJ. Ten simple rules for conducting umbrella reviews. Evid-based Mental Health2018;21:95–100.
