Search

Background Physical activity is crucial to preventing noncommunicable diseases. This study aimed to provide up-to-date evidence on the epidemiology of insufficient physical activity across Nigeria to increase awareness and prompt relevant policy and public health response. Methods A systematic literature search of community-based studies on physical inactivity was conducted. We constructed a meta-regression epidemiologic model to determine the age-adjusted prevalence and number of physically inactive persons in Nigeria for 1995 and 2020. Results Fifteen studies covering a population of 13 814 adults met our selection criteria. The pooled crude prevalence of physically inactive persons in Nigeria was 52.0% (95% CI: 33.7–70.4), with prevalence in women higher at 55.8% (95% CI: 29.4–82.3) compared to men at 49.3% (95% CI: 24.7–73.9). Across settings, prevalence of physically inactive persons was significantly higher among urban dwellers (56.8%, 35.3–78.4) compared to rural dwellers (18.9%, 11.9–49.8). Among persons aged 20–79 years, the total number of physically inactive persons increased from 14.4 million to 48.6 million between 1995 and 2020, equivalent to a 240% increase over the 25-year period. Conclusions A comprehensive and robust strategy that addresses occupational policies, town planning, awareness and information, and sociocultural and contextual issues is crucial to improving physical activity levels in Nigeria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background This study explored barriers and facilitators to integrating health evidence into spatial planning at local authority levels and examined the awareness and use of the Public Health England 'Spatial Planning for Health' resource. Methods A sequential exploratory mixed-methods design utilized in-depth semi-structured interviews followed by an online survey of public health, planning and other built environment professionals in England. Results Views from 19 individuals and 162 survey responses revealed high awareness and use of the Spatial Planning for Health resource, although public health professionals reported greater awareness and use than other professionals. Key barriers to evidence implementation included differences in interpretation and the use of 'evidence' between public health and planning professionals, lack of practical evidence to apply locally and lack of resource and staff capacity in local authorities. Key facilitators included integrating health into the design of local plans, articulating wider benefits to multiple stakeholders and simplifying presenting evidence (regarding language and accessibility). Conclusion The Spatial Planning for Health resource is a useful resource at local authority level. Further work is needed to maximize its use by built environment professionals. Public health teams need support, capacity and skills to ensure that local health and well-being priorities are integrated into local planning documents and decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A correction is presented to the article "Exploring the views of planners and public health practitioners on integrating health evidence into spatial planning in England: a mixed-methods study."