Domain good practice statement (median) scores following Academic and Policymaker Expert Consultation
| Good practice statement . | Academic . | Policymakers . | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | I . | F . | A . | Median . | I . | F . | A . | Median . |
| Policy domains | ||||||||
| Education | 9.1 | 7.3 | 7.3 | 8.0 | 8.6 | 7.0 | 6.6 | 7.3 |
| Transport | 9.0 | 7.0 | 7.4 | 7.9 | 8.4 | 7.0 | 6.5 | 7.2 |
| Urban design | 9.0 | 6.4 | 6.8 | 7.4 | 8.6 | 6.0 | 5.9 | 6.8 |
| Sport & Recreation for All | 8.1 | 6.8 | 6.8 | 7.2 | 8.3 | 7.2 | 6.6 | 7.4 |
| Healthcare | 8.2 | 6.4 | 6.6 | 7.1 | 8.0 | 6.6 | 6.0 | 6.8 |
| Public education/mass media | 7.5 | 6.8 | 6.5 | 6.9 | 7.5 | 6.8 | 6.3 | 6.9 |
| Workplace | 8.1 | 6.3 | 6.4 | 6.9 | 8.1 | 6.7 | 6.0 | 6.8 |
| Community | 7.9 | 6.4 | 6.0 | 6.8 | 8.3 | 7.1 | 6.7 | 7.3 |
| Policy domain median | 8.2 | 6.6 | 6.7 | 7.2 | 8.3 | 6.9 | 6.4 | 7.0 |
| Infrastructure support domains | ||||||||
| Leadership | 8.9 | 7.0 | 7.2 | 7.8 | 8.4 | 7.0 | 6.7 | 7.4 |
| Monitoring and intelligence | 9.2 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 7.7 | 8.3 | 6.6 | 6.5 | 7.2 |
| Workforce development | 8.5 | 6.9 | 6.9 | 7.4 | 7.9 | 6.2 | 6.2 | 6.8 |
| Funding and resources | 8.8 | 6.1 | 7.1 | 7.3 | 8.1 | 6.3 | 6.5 | 7.0 |
| Health-in-all policies | 8.8 | 6.0 | 6.1 | 7.0 | 6.0 | 8.1 | 5.8 | 6.0 |
| Governance | 8.5 | 6.4 | 5.9 | 6.9 | 8.0 | 7.2 | 6.8 | 7.3 |
| Platforms for interaction | 8.3 | 6.1 | 5.9 | 6.9 | 7.7 | 5.6 | 5.6 | 6.5 |
| Infrastructure support domain median | 8.8 | 6.4 | 6.9 | 7.3 | 8.0 | 6.6 | 6.5 | 7.0 |
| Overall median | 8.7 | 6.7 | 6.8 | 8.2 | 6.8 | 6.4 | ||
| Good practice statement . | Academic . | Policymakers . | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | I . | F . | A . | Median . | I . | F . | A . | Median . |
| Policy domains | ||||||||
| Education | 9.1 | 7.3 | 7.3 | 8.0 | 8.6 | 7.0 | 6.6 | 7.3 |
| Transport | 9.0 | 7.0 | 7.4 | 7.9 | 8.4 | 7.0 | 6.5 | 7.2 |
| Urban design | 9.0 | 6.4 | 6.8 | 7.4 | 8.6 | 6.0 | 5.9 | 6.8 |
| Sport & Recreation for All | 8.1 | 6.8 | 6.8 | 7.2 | 8.3 | 7.2 | 6.6 | 7.4 |
| Healthcare | 8.2 | 6.4 | 6.6 | 7.1 | 8.0 | 6.6 | 6.0 | 6.8 |
| Public education/mass media | 7.5 | 6.8 | 6.5 | 6.9 | 7.5 | 6.8 | 6.3 | 6.9 |
| Workplace | 8.1 | 6.3 | 6.4 | 6.9 | 8.1 | 6.7 | 6.0 | 6.8 |
| Community | 7.9 | 6.4 | 6.0 | 6.8 | 8.3 | 7.1 | 6.7 | 7.3 |
| Policy domain median | 8.2 | 6.6 | 6.7 | 7.2 | 8.3 | 6.9 | 6.4 | 7.0 |
| Infrastructure support domains | ||||||||
| Leadership | 8.9 | 7.0 | 7.2 | 7.8 | 8.4 | 7.0 | 6.7 | 7.4 |
| Monitoring and intelligence | 9.2 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 7.7 | 8.3 | 6.6 | 6.5 | 7.2 |
| Workforce development | 8.5 | 6.9 | 6.9 | 7.4 | 7.9 | 6.2 | 6.2 | 6.8 |
| Funding and resources | 8.8 | 6.1 | 7.1 | 7.3 | 8.1 | 6.3 | 6.5 | 7.0 |
| Health-in-all policies | 8.8 | 6.0 | 6.1 | 7.0 | 6.0 | 8.1 | 5.8 | 6.0 |
| Governance | 8.5 | 6.4 | 5.9 | 6.9 | 8.0 | 7.2 | 6.8 | 7.3 |
| Platforms for interaction | 8.3 | 6.1 | 5.9 | 6.9 | 7.7 | 5.6 | 5.6 | 6.5 |
| Infrastructure support domain median | 8.8 | 6.4 | 6.9 | 7.3 | 8.0 | 6.6 | 6.5 | 7.0 |
| Overall median | 8.7 | 6.7 | 6.8 | 8.2 | 6.8 | 6.4 | ||
Note: I, importance; F, feasibility; A, ease of assessment.
All PA-EPI good practice statements were rated by academic and policymaker experts on a 10-point Likert scale for (i) importance (1=relatively unimportant to 10 extremely important), (ii) feasibility (1 = relatively unfeasible to 10 extremely feasible) and (iii) ease of assessment of level of implementation (1 = not at all easy to assess to 10 extremely easy to assess). Median scores per criteria per expert group are shown. Using the expert scores, each statement was ranked by PEN researchers according to the following categories:
(i) Statements rated above the overall median for feasibility, importance and ease of assessment.
(ii) Statements rated above the overall median for feasibility and importance but below the median for ease of assessment.
(iii) Statements rated above the overall median for feasibility and ease of assessment but below the median for importance.
(iv) Statements rated above the overall median for importance and ease of assessment but below the median for feasibility.
(v) Statements rated above the overall median for feasibility but below the median for importance and ease of assessment.
(vi) Statements rated above the overall median for importance but below the median for feasibility and ease of assessment.
(vii) Statements rated above the overall median for ease of assessment but below the median for feasibility and importance.
(viii) Statements rated below the overall median for feasibility, importance and ease of assessment.
Bold numbers indicates 'policy', 'infrastructure' and 'overall' median scores for importance, feasibility and assessment by academics and policymakers.
Domain good practice statement (median) scores following Academic and Policymaker Expert Consultation
| Good practice statement . | Academic . | Policymakers . | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | I . | F . | A . | Median . | I . | F . | A . | Median . |
| Policy domains | ||||||||
| Education | 9.1 | 7.3 | 7.3 | 8.0 | 8.6 | 7.0 | 6.6 | 7.3 |
| Transport | 9.0 | 7.0 | 7.4 | 7.9 | 8.4 | 7.0 | 6.5 | 7.2 |
| Urban design | 9.0 | 6.4 | 6.8 | 7.4 | 8.6 | 6.0 | 5.9 | 6.8 |
| Sport & Recreation for All | 8.1 | 6.8 | 6.8 | 7.2 | 8.3 | 7.2 | 6.6 | 7.4 |
| Healthcare | 8.2 | 6.4 | 6.6 | 7.1 | 8.0 | 6.6 | 6.0 | 6.8 |
| Public education/mass media | 7.5 | 6.8 | 6.5 | 6.9 | 7.5 | 6.8 | 6.3 | 6.9 |
| Workplace | 8.1 | 6.3 | 6.4 | 6.9 | 8.1 | 6.7 | 6.0 | 6.8 |
| Community | 7.9 | 6.4 | 6.0 | 6.8 | 8.3 | 7.1 | 6.7 | 7.3 |
| Policy domain median | 8.2 | 6.6 | 6.7 | 7.2 | 8.3 | 6.9 | 6.4 | 7.0 |
| Infrastructure support domains | ||||||||
| Leadership | 8.9 | 7.0 | 7.2 | 7.8 | 8.4 | 7.0 | 6.7 | 7.4 |
| Monitoring and intelligence | 9.2 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 7.7 | 8.3 | 6.6 | 6.5 | 7.2 |
| Workforce development | 8.5 | 6.9 | 6.9 | 7.4 | 7.9 | 6.2 | 6.2 | 6.8 |
| Funding and resources | 8.8 | 6.1 | 7.1 | 7.3 | 8.1 | 6.3 | 6.5 | 7.0 |
| Health-in-all policies | 8.8 | 6.0 | 6.1 | 7.0 | 6.0 | 8.1 | 5.8 | 6.0 |
| Governance | 8.5 | 6.4 | 5.9 | 6.9 | 8.0 | 7.2 | 6.8 | 7.3 |
| Platforms for interaction | 8.3 | 6.1 | 5.9 | 6.9 | 7.7 | 5.6 | 5.6 | 6.5 |
| Infrastructure support domain median | 8.8 | 6.4 | 6.9 | 7.3 | 8.0 | 6.6 | 6.5 | 7.0 |
| Overall median | 8.7 | 6.7 | 6.8 | 8.2 | 6.8 | 6.4 | ||
| Good practice statement . | Academic . | Policymakers . | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | I . | F . | A . | Median . | I . | F . | A . | Median . |
| Policy domains | ||||||||
| Education | 9.1 | 7.3 | 7.3 | 8.0 | 8.6 | 7.0 | 6.6 | 7.3 |
| Transport | 9.0 | 7.0 | 7.4 | 7.9 | 8.4 | 7.0 | 6.5 | 7.2 |
| Urban design | 9.0 | 6.4 | 6.8 | 7.4 | 8.6 | 6.0 | 5.9 | 6.8 |
| Sport & Recreation for All | 8.1 | 6.8 | 6.8 | 7.2 | 8.3 | 7.2 | 6.6 | 7.4 |
| Healthcare | 8.2 | 6.4 | 6.6 | 7.1 | 8.0 | 6.6 | 6.0 | 6.8 |
| Public education/mass media | 7.5 | 6.8 | 6.5 | 6.9 | 7.5 | 6.8 | 6.3 | 6.9 |
| Workplace | 8.1 | 6.3 | 6.4 | 6.9 | 8.1 | 6.7 | 6.0 | 6.8 |
| Community | 7.9 | 6.4 | 6.0 | 6.8 | 8.3 | 7.1 | 6.7 | 7.3 |
| Policy domain median | 8.2 | 6.6 | 6.7 | 7.2 | 8.3 | 6.9 | 6.4 | 7.0 |
| Infrastructure support domains | ||||||||
| Leadership | 8.9 | 7.0 | 7.2 | 7.8 | 8.4 | 7.0 | 6.7 | 7.4 |
| Monitoring and intelligence | 9.2 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 7.7 | 8.3 | 6.6 | 6.5 | 7.2 |
| Workforce development | 8.5 | 6.9 | 6.9 | 7.4 | 7.9 | 6.2 | 6.2 | 6.8 |
| Funding and resources | 8.8 | 6.1 | 7.1 | 7.3 | 8.1 | 6.3 | 6.5 | 7.0 |
| Health-in-all policies | 8.8 | 6.0 | 6.1 | 7.0 | 6.0 | 8.1 | 5.8 | 6.0 |
| Governance | 8.5 | 6.4 | 5.9 | 6.9 | 8.0 | 7.2 | 6.8 | 7.3 |
| Platforms for interaction | 8.3 | 6.1 | 5.9 | 6.9 | 7.7 | 5.6 | 5.6 | 6.5 |
| Infrastructure support domain median | 8.8 | 6.4 | 6.9 | 7.3 | 8.0 | 6.6 | 6.5 | 7.0 |
| Overall median | 8.7 | 6.7 | 6.8 | 8.2 | 6.8 | 6.4 | ||
Note: I, importance; F, feasibility; A, ease of assessment.
All PA-EPI good practice statements were rated by academic and policymaker experts on a 10-point Likert scale for (i) importance (1=relatively unimportant to 10 extremely important), (ii) feasibility (1 = relatively unfeasible to 10 extremely feasible) and (iii) ease of assessment of level of implementation (1 = not at all easy to assess to 10 extremely easy to assess). Median scores per criteria per expert group are shown. Using the expert scores, each statement was ranked by PEN researchers according to the following categories:
(i) Statements rated above the overall median for feasibility, importance and ease of assessment.
(ii) Statements rated above the overall median for feasibility and importance but below the median for ease of assessment.
(iii) Statements rated above the overall median for feasibility and ease of assessment but below the median for importance.
(iv) Statements rated above the overall median for importance and ease of assessment but below the median for feasibility.
(v) Statements rated above the overall median for feasibility but below the median for importance and ease of assessment.
(vi) Statements rated above the overall median for importance but below the median for feasibility and ease of assessment.
(vii) Statements rated above the overall median for ease of assessment but below the median for feasibility and importance.
(viii) Statements rated below the overall median for feasibility, importance and ease of assessment.
Bold numbers indicates 'policy', 'infrastructure' and 'overall' median scores for importance, feasibility and assessment by academics and policymakers.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase OptionsFor full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
