Suchergebnisse

This editorial is a call for action to make physical activity and sedentary behaviour messages inclusive. It focuses on disability. Numerous definitions of disability and ways of identifying as disabled exist across the globe. For example, some people, cultures, organisations, and governments prefer for certain reasons to use the term 'disabled people', whilst others prefer 'people with disabilities' or 'people with an impairment' [1]. Respecting difference in terminology used around the world [1], we align with the social model and thus use the term 'disabled people' throughout this editorial. Disability refers to people who have long term physical (e.g. spinal cord injury), sensory (e.g. visual impairment), cognitive (e.g. learning difficulties), and/or mental impairments (e.g. depression) which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others [2]. Despite the benefits of physical activity, many disabled people live insufficiently active lifestyles. They are also more likely to be inactive when compared with nondisabled people [2]. Recent UK physical activity guidelines for disabled people recommended doing strength activities on 2 or more days a week and at least 150 min of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity each week for substantial health gains [2-4]. It was also stressed in the UK guidelines that some physical activity is better than nothing as small amounts bring health benefits and the 150 min message alone can be daunting, especially for disabled adults who are mostly inactive [1-4]. The new World Health Organisation global guidelines for physical activity and disability [5] echoed the UK guidelines, providing support for its recommendations. To maximise the impact of national and global physical activity guidelines, and reduce participation inequalities, inclusive and effective communication is vital [1]. Communicating physical activity recommendations and how to reduce sedentary time often includes simple but compelling messages. When it comes to tackling sedentariness, messages like these have and might be used: "Stand up, sit less", "Sit less, move more", "Move more. Sit less. Sleep better.", "Chairs are killer's", "Time to take a stand against inactivity", "Get Britain standing", "On your Feet Britain", "Now is the time to get up and get moving!", "Breaking up with your Chair", and "Swap sitting for moving" [6, 7]. However, such messages are ableist.

Introduction Reductions in traffic speed can potentially offer multiple health and public health benefits. In 2016, implementation of 20mph (30kph) speed limit interventions began in Edinburgh (city-wide) and Belfast (city centre). The aims of this paper are to describe 1) the broad theoretical approach and design of two natural experimental studies to evaluate the 20mph speed limits in Edinburgh and Belfast and 2) how these studies allowed us to test and explore theoretical mechanisms of 20mph speed limit interventions. Methods The evaluation consisted of several work packages, each with different research foci, including the political decision-making processes that led to the schemes, their implementation processes, outcomes (including traffic speed, perceptions of safety, and casualties) and cost effectiveness. We used a combination of routinely and locally collected quantitative data and primary quantitative and qualitative data. Results The evaluation identified many contextual factors influencing the likelihood of 20mph speed limits reaching the political agenda. There were substantial differences between the two sites in several aspects related to implementation. Reductions in speed resulted in significant reductions in collisions and casualties, particularly in Edinburgh, which had higher average speed at baseline. The monetary value of collisions and casualties prevented are likely to exceed the costs of the intervention and thus the overall balance of costs and benefits is likely to be favourable. Conclusions Innovative study designs, including natural experiments, are important for assessing the impact of 'real world' public health interventions. Using multiple methods, this project enabled a deeper understanding of not only the effects of the intervention but the factors that explain how and why the intervention and the effects did or did not occur. Importantly it has shown that 20mph speed limits can lead to reductions in speed, collisions and casualties, and are therefore an effective public health intervention.