4.1 Article

How do general practitioners in Denmark promote physical activity?

Journal

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
Volume 30, Issue 3, Pages 141-146

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/02813432.2012.688710

Keywords

Exercise counselling; health promotion; primary care

Funding

  1. Danish National Board of Health
  2. Aase and Ejnar Danielsens Fond

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. The primary objective of this study was to quantify the frequency of advice given on type, frequency, duration, and intensity of exercise during physical activity (PA) promoting sessions by general practitioners. Second, to find GP characteristics associated with high quality of PA counselling. Design. A cross-sectional questionnaire survey. Setting and subjects. General practitioners in two Danish municipalities in central Copenhagen, Denmark. Results. 56.3% (223/396) of GPs returned the questionnaire. 95.5% (127/223) of the respondents reported giving advice on PA at least weekly. PA promotion included advice on type of exercise, duration, frequency, and intensity in 80% (interquartile range 60 to 90), 70% (50-80), 70% (50-90), and 60% (40-80) of the consultations, respectively. Length of consultation (minutes) was positively associated with increased chance of advice on type of exercise (OR 1.08; 95% CI 1.02-1.13), frequency (OR 1.09; 95% CI 1.03-1.16), and intensity (OR 1.06; 95% CI 1.01-1.11). Having attended a course on exercise promotion was associated with increased information on frequency (OR 1.94; 95% CI 1.05-3.60) and duration (OR 1.81; 95% CI 1.02-3.21). Conclusion. While GPs report frequently providing PA counselling, this often lacks specific advice on how to perform the exercise. GPs who have received training on PA promotion more often report providing advice on duration and frequency of exercise compared with GPs who have not received training on PA promotion.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available