Table 3

Comparison of methodological approaches for selected countries

AustriaGermanyFranceThe netherlandsUK
Lead institutionAustrian Health Promotion Fund (Fonds Gesundes Österreich, FGÖ). FGÖ is a division of the Austrian National Public Health Institute (Gesundheit Österreich GmbH), a corporation fully owned by the Austrian Ministry of Health.Ministry of HealthDirectorate General for HealthHealth Council of the NetherlandsDepartment of Health, England
Size and composition of the expert groupMembers: n=14 (plus additional invited national experts)
Involved disciplines: sport science, public health, sports medicine, economics, injury prevention and PA
Involved institution types: universities, universities of applied sciences, specialist societies, health promotion organisations and NGOs
International experts: n=3		Members: n=16
Involved disciplines: sport science, sports medicine and PA promotion
Involved institution types: universities
International experts: n=2		Members: n=12
Involved disciplines: sociology, epidemiology, physiology, clinical medicine, biology, psychology and public health
Involved institution types: universities, universities of applied sciences, universities of PA with a particular focus on expertise covering the epidemiological evidence on health benefits of PA
International experts: n=1 (in the scientific committee of the Institution)		Members: n=14
Involved disciplines: sport science, exercise physiology, social science, public health and epidemiology
Involved institution types: universities, university of applied sciences and national research institutes
International experts: n=0		Members: n=15 (plus additional invited national experts for working groups for early years (0–5) and sedentary behaviour)
Involved disciplines: PA, with a particular focus on expertise covering the epidemiological evidence on health benefits of PA
Involved institution types: universities, universities of applied sciences, national research institutes, health promotion organisations, and Government Departments
International experts: n=3
Main steps of the development process

  1.  Formation of expert group.

  2.  Literature review: recently published, well-documented national guidelines from other countries

  3.  Development of draft recommendations

  4.  Review by international experts and discussion with expert group

  5.  Revision of draft recommendations

  6.  Meeting with additional invited national experts

  7.  Fine-tuning and publication of recommendations.

 

  1. Formation of expert group.

  2. Systematic literature review: latest national and international PA recommendations.

  3. Development of evaluation grid for assessing quality of PA recommendation.

  4. Identification of high-quality recommendations using the evaluation grid.

  5. Analysis and summary high-quality recommendations content in a draft document.

  6. Meeting with the entire recommendations’ development team and international experts.

  7. Finalisation and publication of recommendations.

  1. Formation of expert group.

  2. Literature review by individual experts for different population groups.

  3. Assessment strength of evidence.

  4. Development of draft recommendations based on reports from different subgroups.

  5. Revision of draft recommendations by the entire expert group.

  6. Review of draft recommendations by extended group of national and international expert.

  7. Finalisation and publication of recommendations.

  1. Formation of expert group.

  2. Development of review methodology.

  3. Systematic literature review: PA recommendations from Australia and the USA and additional, recently published evidence from scientific literature.

  4. Identification the strength of the evidence.

  5. Development of draft recommendations.

  6. Meeting with the entire recommendations’ development team

  7. Finalisation and publication of recommendations.

  1. Formation of expert working groups.

  2. Systematic literature review.

  3. Development of drafts recommendations for different target groups.

  4. Review of first drafts by all other members.

  5. Teleconferences to review the evidence and develop revised drafts.

  6. Scientific consensus meeting with all working groups.

  7. Revision of recommendations using a web based platform by scientific community, stakeholders and other interested parties.

  8. Finalisation and publication of recommendations.

Type of evidence reviewOther national and international PA recommendationsOther high-quality national and international PA recommendationsSingle studies and meta-analysis from international scientific and medical literatureExisting PA recommendations from Australia and the USA, and additional, recently published evidence from pooled analyses, meta analyses and systematic reviews of RCTs or prospective cohort studies

  • Recently published evidence reviews used to construct or update international PA guidelines;

  • Additional pooled analyses, meta-analyses and systematic reviews from prospective and RCT research;

  • And any additional relevant papers identified by the respective expert working group

TimelineMarch 2009–January 2010February 2015– February 2016November 2013–February 2016May 2016–August 2017June 2009–summer 2011

  • NGOs, non-governmental organisations; PA, physical activity.