title: Physical activity promotion through primary health care in England.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  There is increasing research supporting the argument for a beneficial link between physical activity and health maintenance and, in the past five years, this has led to a growth in physical activity promotion schemes involving primary health care.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To document and critically examine the extent and nature of physical activity promotion in general practice in England.
  
  
  METHODS
  A postal survey to all family health services authorities and primary care facilitators was conducted to identify existing and planned activity promotion schemes involving primary health care. Telephone interviews with leaders from 50 selected schemes and further detailed case studies of 11 schemes provided descriptive information of the nature of physical activity promotion.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The initial phase revealed 157 existing schemes and a further 35 planned schemes. Two basic models of physical activity promotion were identified that were distinguishable by the primary location of the management of the patient. Practice-managed interventions (32%) involve on-site counselling to change the behaviour of patients. Leisure centre-managed projects (68%), sometimes termed 'exercise by prescription' or 'general practitioner referral for exercise' schemes, involve the identification of suitable patients and their referral to 10- to 12-week-long leisure centre based exercise induction courses. The projects in the planning stage were all of the latter type, indicating this as the favoured model. Although such schemes were generally successful in attracting patients, in all cases they involved less than 1% of the patient base from which they were drawn.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  There is evidence of successful recruitment, increased short-term physical activity and fitness, and improvements in the well-being of patients. However, schemes are inadequately resourced for rigorous long-term evaluation; therefore, conclusions regarding the cost-effectiveness of the two models are not possible.
authors.affiliation: School of Education, University of Exeter.
authors.forename: K
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Fox
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Biddle
authors.forename: L
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Edmunds
authors.forename: I
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Bowler
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Killoran
mesh_terms: D004739:England; D006293:Health Promotion / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D006801:Humans; D010809:Physical Fitness; D011320:Primary Health Care