{"id":246,"date":"2006-09-07T10:16:05","date_gmt":"2006-09-07T15:16:05","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2019-10-28T14:01:25","modified_gmt":"2019-10-28T19:01:25","slug":"the-prevalence-and-focus-of-workplace-fitness-programs-in-denmark-results-of-a-national-survey","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/the-prevalence-and-focus-of-workplace-fitness-programs-in-denmark-results-of-a-national-survey\/","title":{"rendered":"The Prevalence and Focus of Workplace Fitness Programs in Denmark: Results of a National Survey"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"submitted\">Submitted by: Thomas Skovgaard (corresponding author) &amp; Finn Berggren<\/div>\n<p><strong>Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><em>Purpose: <\/em>This study describes the prevalence of physical activity<br \/>\nprograms at Danish workplaces with one-hundred or more employees<\/p>\n<p><em>Design:<\/em> Cross-sectional<\/p>\n<p><em>Setting:<\/em> Denmark<\/p>\n<p><em>Subjects:<\/em> All private and public workplaces of the designated<br \/>\nsize (n=2422).<\/p>\n<p><em>Measures:<\/em> A two-phase research model was used. Phase 1 consisted<br \/>\nof telephone interviews involving all workplaces. Phase 2 was conducted<br \/>\nusing a structured, self-administered questionnaire which elicited more<br \/>\ndetailed descriptions of workplaces identified as promoting physical activity<br \/>\n(n=449). Response rates were 92% and 69% in Phases 1 and 2 respectively.<\/p>\n<p><em>Data Analysis:<\/em> Data were analyzed using StatView statistical<br \/>\nsoftware.<\/p>\n<p><!--break--><\/p>\n<p><em>Results:<\/em> 18.6% of all workplaces (n=2422) offer employees opportunities<br \/>\nfor physical activity on a regular basis. Analysis of the data from workplaces<br \/>\nincluded in Phase 2 (n=449) showed the following: The most frequently<br \/>\ncited motive for providing opportunities for physical activity is to promote<br \/>\nsocial contact between employees.<br \/>\n63% of the workplaces have instructors for the activities on offer, while<br \/>\n39% mention that some form of assessment is linked to the offer of physical<br \/>\nactivity. 50% of the programs have been implemented within the last ten<br \/>\nyears.<\/p>\n<p><em>Conclusions:<\/em> The results indicate that the concept of physical<br \/>\nactivity as part of everyday working life has acquired real momentum in<br \/>\nDenmark in recent decades, but nevertheless is still at an early stage.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Physical activity at the workplace\u2014a historical outline<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Physical activity at the workplace is not a recent phenomenon in Denmark.<br \/>\nTraditional company sports began more than half a century ago and were<br \/>\norganized in a national association. The primary aim of this association<br \/>\nover the years has been to organize competitions and tournaments among<br \/>\nvarious firms and companies. However, only recently has physical activity<br \/>\nreceived much attention as a catalyst for health and well being among<br \/>\nemployees, or as a building block in corporate culture.<\/p>\n<p>Thus, marked promotion of physical activity at the workplace first emerged<br \/>\nin 1987 when the Danish government presented the Government Preventive<br \/>\nProgram, influenced by WHO\u2019s strategy Health for All\u2014Year<br \/>\n2000 (Ministry of Health, 1989). In the subsequent action plans, it is<br \/>\nthe relationship between physical activity and the prevention of specific<br \/>\nillnesses that has been the constant theme\u2014although the 1990s saw<br \/>\na change of emphasis, with concepts like well being and social determinants<br \/>\nof health coming to the fore. This latter trend is reflected partly in<br \/>\na variety of educational initiatives dealing with the promotion of physical<br \/>\nactivity and fitness, and partly in official governmental guidelines for<br \/>\nthe implementation of physical activity at workplaces from 1997 onwards<br \/>\n(National Board of Health, 1997). The overall development has been borne<br \/>\nout through the publication and promotion of the ambitious 2002 government<br \/>\nstrategy entitled Healthy throughout life \u2013 a follow-up on The Danish<br \/>\nGovernment Programme on Public Health and Health Promotion 1999-2008 published<br \/>\nin 1999 (Ministry of Health, 1999. Government of Denmark, 2002).<\/p>\n<p>In continuation of these political and health policy trends, this article<br \/>\npresents one of few comprehensive overviews of physical activity programs<br \/>\nat Danish workplaces. The results obtained and experiences gained from<br \/>\nthis survey should be used to promote the continued implementation of<br \/>\nworkplace fitness programs in particular and of workplace health promotion<br \/>\nin general. Furthermore, this article seeks to make a contribution to<br \/>\nthe collection of fundamental knowledge and facts which is needed in order<br \/>\nto make possible international comparative research into minor or major<br \/>\naspects of health promotion.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Methods<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><em>Design<br \/>\n<\/em><br \/>\nThe results presented in this paper are from an exploratory survey which<br \/>\nwas conducted with the aim of systematically collecting background data<br \/>\non a subject of which relatively little is currently known, namely health<br \/>\npromotion and physical activity at the workplace in Denmark. It was decided<br \/>\nto collate a limited amount of information from a large number of survey<br \/>\nreturns concerning key variables related to both structural and human<br \/>\nresources.<\/p>\n<p>The aims of the national survey were thus:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>To determine the number of Danish workplaces offering physical activity<br \/>\nto employees on a regular basis<\/li>\n<li>To identify trends underlying the programs offered<\/li>\n<li>To determine who is responsible for these programs<\/li>\n<li>To describe how and where programs are made available<\/li>\n<li>To document who meets the costs of establishing and running programs.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><em>Sample<br \/>\n<\/em><br \/>\nThe sample included all private and public workplaces in Denmark with<br \/>\none-hundred or more employees. Statistics Denmark provided information<br \/>\nas regards the name, addresses, and telephone numbers of each workplace,<br \/>\nthe type of workplace, and the number of employees. The data were arranged<br \/>\ngeographically, listed by municipality. Statistics Denmark updates information<br \/>\non roughly \u00bd million Danish workplaces every sixth month, and supplies<br \/>\ninformation requested within ten days. The basic data can be regarded<br \/>\nas extremely reliable, because of the close co-operation between Statistics<br \/>\nDenmark and the Danish taxation authorities.<\/p>\n<p>The grounds for selecting one-hundred employees as the lower limit were:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>The lower limit was chosen in the light of the time and resources<br \/>\navailable for the study. 2,422 Danish workplaces were registered as<br \/>\nhaving one-hundred or more employees. This was considered to be a practicable<br \/>\nnumber of workplaces to investigate, given the above mentioned conditions.<\/li>\n<li>Experiences gained from a pilot project carried out some years ago,<br \/>\nconcerning the extent of opportunities for physical activity at workplaces<br \/>\nin a selected region of Denmark, indicated one-hundred employees as<br \/>\na suitable threshold value. The pilot study investigated all workplaces<br \/>\nwith at least twenty employees. It was found that only one of the workplaces<br \/>\noffering physical activity on a formal, planned and regular basis had<br \/>\nless than one-hundred employees (Berggren &amp; Skovgaard, 1995). This<br \/>\nfinding is somewhat different from results presented in other research<br \/>\nstudies where physical activity, defined in much the same way as mentioned<br \/>\nabove, is frequently cited as a current health promotion initiative<br \/>\nat workplaces employing less than one-hundred people (Wilson et al.,<br \/>\n1999).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p><em>Measures<br \/>\n<\/em><br \/>\nCollection of data was divided into two phases:<\/p>\n<p>Phase 1: Selection via telephone contact<br \/>\nThe 2,422 workplaces were contacted over the telephone. The use of a protocol<br \/>\nassisted interview system made it possible to discriminate between a group<br \/>\nof workplaces that were to take part in the later survey and a group that<br \/>\ndid not live up to a criterion concerning workplace promotion of physical<br \/>\nactivity.<\/p>\n<p>Workplace promotion of physical activity was defined for the respondents<br \/>\nas: activities which lay outside the auspices of the three national Danish<br \/>\nsports associations and offered employees at least thirty minutes of physical<br \/>\nactivity once a week or more frequently.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, it was a requirement that respondents could answer \u2018yes\u2019<br \/>\nto one or both of the following sub-criteria:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>The ongoing initiatives regarding physical activity takes place solely<br \/>\nor partial at the workplace;<\/li>\n<li>Workplace management bears some of the running expenses in connection<br \/>\nwith the activities.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>The protocol assisted interview system included a standardized interview<br \/>\nguide. This gave a detailed definition of the term workplace promotion<br \/>\nof physical activity. There was a set of instructions related to the interview<br \/>\nguide which stipulated a specific order in which questions were to be<br \/>\nasked. This meant that the sub-criteria were mentioned last. The interview<br \/>\nprotocol required that if the initial contact person (typically someone<br \/>\nin the secretariat) was unable to provide the information requested, this<br \/>\nperson should be asked to transfer the request to another contact person<br \/>\n(usually someone in the personnel or administrative department).<\/p>\n<p>The telephone interviews were conducted by qualified personnel with experience<br \/>\nin working on questionnaire-based projects. Before the work started there<br \/>\nwere two preparatory meetings in which the interview protocol was reviewed,<br \/>\ncommented upon, and revised.<\/p>\n<p>Of the initial 2,422 workplaces listed, it proved impossible to get in<br \/>\ntouch with 163. A further twenty workplaces either could not or refused<br \/>\nto participate in the survey. There was thus no information available<br \/>\nfor a total of 183 workplaces. Ninety-two percent of the companies in<br \/>\nthe sample were reached in Phase I, and this was judged to be acceptable.<\/p>\n<p>Phase 2: Detailed questionnaire survey<br \/>\nThis part of the survey covered all workplaces that fulfilled the requirements<br \/>\nset out in the definition of <em>workplace promotion of physical activity.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>All workplaces that fulfilled these conditions agreed to take part in<br \/>\nthe subsequent survey, based on a structured, self administered questionnaire,<br \/>\nwhich was to be answered in writing and returned in an enclosed addressed<br \/>\nreply envelope. The questionnaire had a total of thirty-two questions<br \/>\nwith multiple choice response categories, frequently with the possibility<br \/>\nof adding further comments in marked sections.<\/p>\n<p>The questionnaire form was sent to a named contact person at the workplace<br \/>\nwho was selected as being a knowledgeable and appropriate informant in<br \/>\nthis context.<\/p>\n<p>Of the 449 workplaces that received the questionnaire (corresponding<br \/>\nto 18.6% of all Danish workplaces with at least one-hundred employees),<br \/>\n310 (69%) responded. An analysis of the non-respondents showed no systematic<br \/>\nand consistent pattern when respondent and non-respondent groups were<br \/>\ncompared with respect to:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Number of employees<\/li>\n<li>Whether the workplace was in the private or public sector<\/li>\n<li>Type of workplace<\/li>\n<li>Geographical location (postal code)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Analysis<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>This article is mostly based on the information collected by means of<br \/>\nthe questionnaire survey. The internal missing response rate, i.e. the<br \/>\nproportion of a given questions to which no response was made on the survey<br \/>\nforms returned, never exceeded 3% and followed no systematic pattern.<br \/>\nThe internal missing responses are therefore considered to have only minor<br \/>\neffect on the reliability of the survey results.<br \/>\nThe data from the forms were entered into a database by a firm specializing<br \/>\nin this type of work.<br \/>\nThe data entered were then checked for errors against the original questionnaire<br \/>\nforms.<br \/>\nDescriptive data analysis was carried out using the StatView statistical<br \/>\nsoftware package.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Results<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>General data\u2014the size of workplaces<br \/>\n18.6% of all Danish workplaces with at least one-hundred employees offer<br \/>\nregular physical activity as previously defined. A comparison with the<br \/>\nresults from the pilot study cited above suggests that a large increase<br \/>\nin the number of Danish workplaces offering physical activity has taken<br \/>\nplace over a short period of time. The national survey also shows that<br \/>\nroughly half of the workplaces have begun to offer opportunities for physical<br \/>\nactivity within the last decade. It is also noteworthy that in only one<br \/>\nin five states were making such an offer before 1980.<\/p>\n<p>As shown in table I (part A), nearly half (48%) of the Danish workplaces<br \/>\noffering regular physical activity have 100-199 employees, while about<br \/>\na third of the workplaces (32%) lie within the 200 499 range. The somewhat<br \/>\nsmaller figure for larger workplaces (those with five-hundred or more<br \/>\nemployees) that offer opportunities for physical activity corresponds<br \/>\nquite closely to the overall number of such larger workplaces existing<br \/>\nin Denmark. Indeed, Table I suggests that as a rule, the proportion of<br \/>\nDanish workplaces, which fall within a given size group, tends to tally<br \/>\nwith the share of workplaces offering physical activity within the same<br \/>\nsize group.<\/p>\n<p>From the outset, it was assumed that physical activity programs at the<br \/>\nworkplace would be more prevalent among smaller and medium sized workplaces.<br \/>\nThis expectation was based on the conjecture that it would perhaps be<br \/>\neasier to agree on perspectives and aims of physical activity at smaller<br \/>\nand medium-sized workplaces. The findings described above do not support<br \/>\nsuch an assumption.<\/p>\n<p>Who initiates physical activity at the workplace, and why?<br \/>\nAt almost half the workplaces investigated (44%) it was the employees<br \/>\nwho had taken the initiative. If one includes joint initiatives between<br \/>\nemployees and employer, the involvement of employees grows to 79%. The<br \/>\ninitiative came from management alone in only 19% of workplaces.<\/p>\n<p>Table I suggests that within the last decade a shift has taken place<br \/>\nin the primary reasons given for introducing physical activity at Danish<br \/>\nworkplaces. Surveys conducted at selected workplaces in the early and<br \/>\nmid 1990s pointed to a clear emphasis on such aims as \u2018to reduce<br \/>\nabsence due to illness\u2019 and \u2018to increase efficiency\u2019<br \/>\n(Andersen, Berggren, &amp; L\u00fcders, 1996). The national survey, on<br \/>\nthe other hand, shows that the three most frequently cited aims are:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>To promote social contact between employees<\/li>\n<li>To accommodate employee requirements<\/li>\n<li>To contribute to the overall work environment<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><em>Activities offered<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The national survey shows that the three most frequently offered activities<br \/>\nat Danish workplaces are weight training, cardiovascular exercise using<br \/>\nfitness equipment (e.g. steppers, treadmills, ellipticals, and rowers),<br \/>\nand various kinds of aerobics.<\/p>\n<p>Table II shows that while almost 80% of all workplaces state that weight<br \/>\ntraining is offered, this figure falls to 70% if the requirement is for<br \/>\nboth weight training and cardiovascular exercise using fitness equipment<br \/>\nto be offered. The fall becomes even more dramatic if activities such<br \/>\nas aerobic dance and general gymnastics are included as well.<\/p>\n<p>It is noteworthy that just over 10% of all workplaces have such wide<br \/>\nranges of activities on offer that they include all the four types of<br \/>\nactivity mentioned above.<\/p>\n<p><em>Establishing and running activities<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Financially, the provision of physical activity at the workplace involves<br \/>\nboth employers and employees. Table II shows that meeting the costs incurred<br \/>\nin establishing the facilities for physical activity involves the employer<br \/>\nto a considerable extent. In 35% of cases this is done in cooperation<br \/>\nwith the employees. In roughly one out of ten cases the economic burden<br \/>\nof establishing the activities is the sole concern of the employees.<\/p>\n<p>The employer is also involved in the running costs, as just over 30%<br \/>\nof companies state that the employer covers the annual running costs,<br \/>\nwhile another 40% report that the users and the employer share these costs.<\/p>\n<p>In 20% of cases it is the employees alone who cover the running costs,<br \/>\nwhile in a small proportion of workplaces (6%) the running costs are financed<br \/>\nin some other way, for example through grants from unions or foundations.<\/p>\n<p><em>Access to facilities for physical activity<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Workplaces were asked to what extent they offer physical activity within<br \/>\nand outside working hours. It is a motivating factor for the employees<br \/>\nthat the workplace offers such facilities during working hours. Furthermore,<br \/>\nthe use of working hours for physical activity implies that the workplace<br \/>\ntakes the task of activating employees seriously.<\/p>\n<p>Sixty-two percent of the workplaces investigated stated that physical<br \/>\nactivity is only offered outside working hours. Thus, at most of the investigated<br \/>\nworkplaces the willingness to invest in employees\u2019 physical activity<br \/>\nby reducing the hours spent working is not present. It is, however, notable<br \/>\nthat 32% of workplaces state that such activity is available both within<br \/>\nand outside working hours.<\/p>\n<p>In almost 90% of workplaces the offer is predominantly taken up immediately<br \/>\nafter work. To some extent, this might be because it can be awkward to<br \/>\nreturn to the workplace once one has started on domestic or other commitments.<\/p>\n<p><em>Who provides instruction?<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The survey shows that 63% of workplaces provide instructors in connection<br \/>\nwith some of the activities on offer. It transpires, however, that in<br \/>\nonly 32% of cases are all activities conducted under some form of guidance.<br \/>\nThe activity that most typically lacks such guidance is the use of weight<br \/>\ntraining equipment.<\/p>\n<p>Only two out of five instructors state that they have some form of relevant<br \/>\nformal training for the job. Furthermore, the survey reveals that the<br \/>\nmajority of those who have had such training acquired their knowledge<br \/>\nthrough weekend or other short courses.<\/p>\n<p><em>Family<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Just over 40% of the workplaces state that members of employees\u2019<br \/>\nfamilies also have access to the activities. A slightly higher proportion<br \/>\n(43%) does not admit other members of the family or partners. The difference<br \/>\nin the size of these two groups is, however, so small that it cannot be<br \/>\nsaid that there is any clear tendency for workplaces to either give or<br \/>\ndeny family members access to physical activity facilities.<\/p>\n<p><em>Evaluation<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Thirty-nine percent of the workplaces state that some form of evaluation<br \/>\nis linked to the offer of physical activity, but it is only very few (11%)<br \/>\nof these that can be said to conduct a systematic, regular assessment<br \/>\nof their activities. This is not, however, a distinctively Danish phenomenon,<br \/>\nbut rather an indication of a general trend whereby the majority of health<br \/>\npromotion programs are not subject to evaluation. Useful evaluation demands<br \/>\nadequate resources: the availability of time, money, and regular staff<br \/>\nor consultants skilled in carrying out evaluation activities. Company<br \/>\nbudgets rarely allow room for such ideal provisions (Chapman, 1999).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Discussion<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><em>Summary<\/em><\/p>\n<p>This study constitutes one of the first Scandinavian attempts at a national<br \/>\nsurvey of workplace promotion of physical activity. In general, the data<br \/>\npresented in this article should be seen as an attempt to provide the<br \/>\nfundamental information and analysis that is needed for cross-national<br \/>\ncomparisons on health promotion topics.<\/p>\n<p>Just under 19% of all Danish workplaces with at least one-hundred employees<br \/>\nmake regular provision for physical activity. The results suggest that<br \/>\nthe size of the workplace appears to have no independent effect on the<br \/>\nextent to which opportunities for physical activity are provided. Interestingly<br \/>\nenough, four-fifths of the programs currently in operation began during<br \/>\nthe last twenty years. It is also worth mentioning that in around 40%<br \/>\nof cases, employees and employers both contribute to establishment and<br \/>\nrunning costs for the programs. Furthermore, it should be noted that the<br \/>\nmajority of workplace exercise programs only offer a limited range of<br \/>\nactivity types, and make no provision for systematic evaluation of the<br \/>\nprograms through user surveys, measurement of results, etc. This last<br \/>\nfinding is to be viewed in light of the fact that the three most frequently<br \/>\nnamed goals of the provision of opportunities for physical activity are<br \/>\nrelated to the well-being of employees and general working conditions.<\/p>\n<p><em>Limitations<\/em><\/p>\n<p>This study has a number of limitations.<\/p>\n<p>First, there has been no previous attempt to measure the extent and nature<br \/>\nof the provision of opportunities for physical activity at Danish workplaces.<br \/>\nIn 1997, 2002, and 2005 the National Board of Health commissioned inventories<br \/>\non health promotion activities and strategies at Danish workplaces (National<br \/>\nBoard of Health, 2006). The reports coming out of this work also deal<br \/>\nwith physical activity. However, the National Board of Health applies<br \/>\na much broader definition of workplace promotion of physical activity<br \/>\nthan the one used in the present study. The various dataset are therefore<br \/>\nnon-comparable and dynamic studies of development over time are not possible.<\/p>\n<p>Second, the data collecting process was designed with the analysis of<br \/>\naggregated data in mind. It is therefore not possible to use the data<br \/>\nto evaluate exactly how the various physical activity programs operate<br \/>\nand why they have been set up as they are, or to determine whether there<br \/>\nare typical decision-making and amendment processes which lead to the<br \/>\nestablishment, revision, and abandonment of physical exercise programs.<\/p>\n<p>Third, although the survey instruments used standard items, estimates<br \/>\nof reliability and validity are not available. However, for Phase 1 of<br \/>\nthe survey, the protocol assisted interview system was developed by a<br \/>\nworking group comprising people who all had previous experience with questionnaire-based<br \/>\nprojects. The questionnaire used in Phase 2 was constructed on the basis<br \/>\nof a form used in the mentioned pilot study concerning a respondent group<br \/>\nvery similar to that in the national survey.<\/p>\n<p><em>Implications<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Official action programs promoted by Danish Government at central, regional,<br \/>\nand local levels, and networks such as the WHO project Healthy Cities,<br \/>\nhave frequently stressed the need to offer physical activity as part of<br \/>\ngeneral strategies related to workplace health promotion (Ratzan, Filerman,<br \/>\n&amp; LeSar, 2000. Danish Healthy Cities Network, 2004). Recently, focus<br \/>\non this area has increased due to new legislative initiatives that obligates<br \/>\nmunicipal authorities to be the driving force in prevention and health<br \/>\npromotion matters. The workplace has been pointed out as an obvious setting<br \/>\nthrough which to reach the adult population (National Centre for Workplace<br \/>\nHealth Promotion, 2005).<\/p>\n<p>Initiatives such as the ones mentioned have included only brief comments<br \/>\nrelated to the problem of adherence to and compliance with workplace exercise<br \/>\nprograms, and to the role of instructors in this perspective. In contrast<br \/>\nto the situation in many other western countries, there are no Danish<br \/>\nguidelines or rules that regulate and promote the trainer\/instructor dimension<br \/>\nof the field of fitness and physical activity at the workplace. Partly<br \/>\nfor this reason, most Danish workplaces offering physical activity have<br \/>\nstill not fully accepted the consequences of the relationship between<br \/>\nthe earlier stated reasons for implementing workplace fitness programs<br \/>\n(cf. Table 1, part B) and the central role of the instructor when what<br \/>\nis expected is both improvement in the physical condition of individuals<br \/>\nand a general improvement to the overall work environment. The results<br \/>\npresented indicate that only a small proportion of workplaces ensure that<br \/>\ntheir instructors have or obtain relevant pedagogical experience and theoretical<br \/>\nknowledge.<\/p>\n<p>This state of affairs can be linked to the survey finding that only about<br \/>\n10% of all workplaces have multi-range fitness programs that include more<br \/>\nthan three types of activity (Table II). Greater variation and breadth<br \/>\nin developing and implementing workplace physical activity schemes could<br \/>\nvery likely influence the number of participants and the pattern of employee<br \/>\nexercise adherence and compliance. In general, careful planning and making<br \/>\nexercise a more pleasurable part of the work environment appear to have<br \/>\nat least a short-term positive effect on exercise adherence (Blue et al.,<br \/>\n1995. Andreasen &amp; M\u00f8ller-J\u00f8rgensen, 2005). However,<br \/>\nfor many longterm adherence to exercise programs is a greater challenge.<br \/>\nAs Chen et al. (2005) point out \u201cThe biggest challenge of a work-site<br \/>\nfitness program is to sustain long-term interest and enthusiasm\u201d.<br \/>\nThis conclusion could be applied to both the individual and organizational<br \/>\nlevel (Atlantis et al., 2006). Workplaces wanting to support such long<br \/>\nterm efforts must be prepared to invest many types of resources (eg. human,<br \/>\nfinancial, organizational) (Nurminen E, 2002). Another challenge is engaging<br \/>\nthe more sedentary part of the workforce. In general participation rates<br \/>\nin workplace health promotion programs are not that impressive and those<br \/>\nwho do take part tend to the employees whose general health and health<br \/>\nbehavior profile is better than average (Healthy People 2010, online documents<br \/>\nA).<\/p>\n<p>It is important to stress that though this survey shows that only approximately<br \/>\n20% of Danish workplaces with one-hundred or more employees offer exercise<br \/>\nprograms, compared to, for example, the situation in the United States,<br \/>\nwhere the corresponding figure is about 50% (Healthy People 2010, online<br \/>\ndocuments B), this is not to be taken as a precise indication of the overall<br \/>\nphysical activity level in the Danish adolescent and adult population<br \/>\nas a whole. Thirty-seven percent of men and 23% of women in Denmark over<br \/>\nthe age of 15 are members of one or more sport associations and 72% of<br \/>\nthe total adult population state that they engage in leisure time sport<br \/>\nactivities on a regular basis (Fridberg, 2000, Larsen, 2003). Moreover,<br \/>\nwhile about 80% of the Danish adult population is moderately active at<br \/>\nleast four hours a week this is the case for roughly 40% of the same group<br \/>\nin the United States (Kj\u00f8ller &amp; Rasmussen, 2002. US Department<br \/>\nof Health and Human Services, 1999).<\/p>\n<p>At the same time, it must be noted that about half of the Danish adult<br \/>\npopulation is not physically active in a degree that complies with the<br \/>\nprimary public recommendation of minimum thirty minutes of moderate-intensity<br \/>\nphysical activity per day (National Board of Health, 2002: J\u00f8rgensen<br \/>\nand Rosenlund, 2005). This dismal figure corresponds quite well with the<br \/>\nWHO estimate that at least 60% of the global population fails to achieve<br \/>\nthe recommendation of at least thirty minutes moderate intensity physical<br \/>\nactivity daily (WHO, 2003, WHO, 2004).<\/p>\n<p>Lastly, it must be pointed out that the vast majority of Danish workplaces<br \/>\nhave hitherto not considered workplace exercise promotion as a task in<br \/>\nwhich they played any major role. Only with the stronger political signals<br \/>\nof the last ten to twenty years, concerning the workplace as an important<br \/>\nsetting for health promotion and disease prevention, has it been possible<br \/>\nto see much movement and shift of perspective regarding the area of workplace<br \/>\nphysical activity among the many decision-makers of importance in this<br \/>\nnexus.<\/p>\n<p>Perspectives: Implications for practitioners and researchers within sports-<br \/>\nand health promotion science<\/p>\n<p>The survey data and other information presented in this article indicates<br \/>\nthat workplace fitness programs in Denmark have been gaining ground, especially<br \/>\nin the last ten to twenty years. Combined with other research suggesting<br \/>\nthat the Danish labor market as a whole is putting more and more energy<br \/>\ninto the general field of health promotion, there seems to be support<br \/>\nfor the assumption that the amount of work available for health promotion<br \/>\npractitioners is on the increase and that workplaces are interested in<br \/>\nusing health activities as a means of promoting their employees\u2019<br \/>\nwell being. If this assumption is correct, future effort should ensure<br \/>\nthat:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>the personnel engaged in physical activity and health promotion at<br \/>\nworkplaces should receive better training and education in exercise<br \/>\nand health related issues. With a view to encourage development of educational<br \/>\nprograms and tailored personnel engaged in workplace health promotion,<br \/>\nnational guidelines should be considered in order to increase the standards<br \/>\nfor the education of health promotion and\/or exercise professionals<br \/>\nin workplace settings. Countries such as the US, Germany, and the UK<br \/>\noffer suitable models for established standards for exercise professionals.<br \/>\nA future objective could be to implement a common reference system in<br \/>\nthe EU to promote good practice as regards Workplace promotion of physical<br \/>\nactivity. An effective starting point is the general quality criteria<br \/>\nfor workplace health promotion developed by the European Network for<br \/>\nWorkplace Health Promotion (ENWHP).<\/li>\n<li>the many separate initiatives concerning health promotion, including<br \/>\nphysical activity, must be linked to general efforts made by public<br \/>\nauthorities to improve workplace health and safety.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Basic information concerning workplace fitness<br \/>\nprograms I <\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>\n<div><strong>Total sample (n=2,422)* <\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Part A<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Number of employees<\/td>\n<td>100-199<\/td>\n<td>200-499<\/td>\n<td>500-999<\/td>\n<td>1000+<\/td>\n<td>Unknown<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Variable <\/strong><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Percentage of all Danish workplaces (100+ employees)<\/td>\n<td>52<\/td>\n<td>33<\/td>\n<td>11<\/td>\n<td>3<\/td>\n<td>1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Percentage of all Danish workplaces (100+ employees) with fitness<br \/>\nprograms<\/td>\n<td>48<\/td>\n<td>32<\/td>\n<td>12<\/td>\n<td>5<\/td>\n<td>3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Part B<br \/>\n<\/strong><em>Most frequently mentioned reasons for implementing physical<br \/>\nactivity at the workplace <\/em><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Variable<\/td>\n<td>%<\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>To promote social contact among employees<\/td>\n<td>28<\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>To meet employee requirements<\/td>\n<td>18<\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>To contribute to the work environment<\/td>\n<td>14<\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>* While the total sample size was 2,422 workplaces, the<br \/>\nnumber responses to questions included in this table ranged from 2,349<br \/>\nin Part A and 2,400 in Part B.<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Basic information concerning workplace fitness<br \/>\nprograms II<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>\n<div><strong>Total sample (n=310)*<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>\n<div><strong>Range of activities on offer<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<td>\n<div><strong>Establishing<br \/>\nPrograms<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<td>\n<div><strong>Running<br \/>\nPrograms<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Variable:<\/td>\n<td>Variable:<\/td>\n<td>Variable:<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><em>activities included in workplace fitness programs<\/em><\/td>\n<td><em>who covers the preliminary expenses?<\/em><\/td>\n<td><em>who covers the annual running<br \/>\nexpenses?<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><\/td>\n<td>n<\/td>\n<td>%<\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td>n<\/td>\n<td>%<\/td>\n<td><\/td>\n<td>n<\/td>\n<td>%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>1<sup>i<\/sup><\/td>\n<td>239<\/td>\n<td>78<\/td>\n<td>employees<\/td>\n<td>37<\/td>\n<td>12<\/td>\n<td>employees<\/td>\n<td>62<\/td>\n<td>20<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>1+2<sup>ii<\/sup><\/td>\n<td>214<\/td>\n<td>70<\/td>\n<td>employer<\/td>\n<td>127<\/td>\n<td>42<\/td>\n<td>employer<\/td>\n<td>102<\/td>\n<td>34<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>1+2+3<sup>iii<\/sup><\/td>\n<td>86<\/td>\n<td>28<\/td>\n<td>employee\/employer<\/td>\n<td>105<\/td>\n<td>35<\/td>\n<td>employee\/employer<\/td>\n<td>121<\/td>\n<td>40<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>1+2+3+4 <sup>iv<\/sup><\/td>\n<td>34<\/td>\n<td>11<\/td>\n<td>others<\/td>\n<td>32<\/td>\n<td>11<\/td>\n<td>others<\/td>\n<td>19<\/td>\n<td>6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>* While the total sample size was 310 workplaces, the number<br \/>\nresponses to questions included in this table ranged from 301 to 306.<\/p>\n<p><sup>i<\/sup>Weight training<br \/>\n<sup>ii<\/sup>Weight- and cardiovascular exercise training<br \/>\n<sup>iii<\/sup>Weight- and cardiovascular exercise training and aerobics<br \/>\n<sup>iv <\/sup>Weight- and cardiovascular exercise training, aerobics,<br \/>\nand general gymnastics<\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p><strong>References<\/strong><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Andersen, B., Berggren, F. &amp; L\u00fcders, K. (1996) Det Batter \u2013\u00a0stadig. Odense: Working papers from Institute of Sport Science &amp; Clinical\u00a0Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark.<\/li>\n<li>Andreasen, M. &amp; M\u00f8ller-J\u00f8rgensen, N. (2005). En settingstilgang\u00a0til sundhedsfremme p\u00e5 arbejdspladsen \u2013 TDC erhvervscenter\u00a0i Odense. In K. L\u00fcders &amp; N. Vogensen N (Eds.), Idr\u00e6tsp\u00e6dagogisk\u00a0\u00c5rbog 2004\/5 (pp. 140-167). Gerlev: Forlaget Bavnebanke.<\/li>\n<li>Atlantis, E., Chow CH., Kirkby, A. &amp; Singh MAF. (2006) Worksite intervention\u00a0effects on physical health: a randomised controlled trial. Health Promotion\u00a0International, 21 (3), 191-200.<\/li>\n<li>Berggren, F. &amp; Skovgaard, T. (1995). Aktivitetstilbud og motionsfaciliteter\u00a0p\u00e5 fynske\u00a0arbejdspladser. Odense: University press of southern Denmark.<\/li>\n<li>Blue, C.L. &amp; Conrad, K.M. (1995) Adherence to worksite exercise programs\u00a0\u2013 an integrative review of recent research. AAOHN J, 43, 76-86.<\/li>\n<li>Chapman, L.S. (1999) Evaluating your program. TAHP, 3, 1-12.<\/li>\n<li>Chen, S., Cromartie, F. &amp; Esposito E. (2005) The Fitness Assessment\u00a0on the Employees of a Sport\u00a0Institution \u2014 A Case Study of the United States Sports Academy.\u00a0The Sport Journal, 8, 1.<\/li>\n<li>Danish Healthy Cities Network (2004). Sund by netv\u00e6rkt\u00f8jskassen\u00a0\u2013 Sundhed og trivsel p\u00e5\u00a0arbejdspladsen http:\/\/www.sundbynet.dk\/PDF\/Netv%E6rkt%F8jskassen\/Revideret%20Netv%E6rkt%F8jskasse%20nov.04.\u00a0Accessed January 4, 2006.<\/li>\n<li>Fridberg, T. (2000) Kultur- og fritidsaktiviter 1975-1998. Copenhagen:\u00a0The Danish National\u00a0Institute of Social Research.<\/li>\n<li>Government of Denmark (2002). Healthy throughout life\u00a0http:\/\/www.folkesundhed.dk\/ref.aspx?id=190.\u00a0Accessed January 4, 2006).<\/li>\n<li>Healthy People 2010 Online Documents A\u00a0http:\/\/www.healthypeople.gov\/document\/HTML\/Volume1\/07Ed.htm#_Toc490550857.\u00a0Accessed January 7, 2006.<\/li>\n<li>Healthy People 2010 Online Documents B\u00a0http:\/\/www.healthypeople.gov\/document\/html\/tracking\/od22.htm#physactadult.\u00a0Accessed January 4, 2006.<\/li>\n<li>J\u00f8rgensen, ME &amp; Rosenlund, M. (2005). National monitoring \u00a0fysisk aktivitet \u2013 et metodestudie. Copenhagen: The National institute\u00a0for public health.<\/li>\n<li>Kj\u00f8ller, M. &amp; Rasmussen, N.K. (2002) Sundhed &amp; Sygelighed\u00a0i Danmark 2000 &amp; udviklingen siden\u00a01987. Copenhagen: National Institute of Public Health<\/li>\n<li>Larsen, K. (2003). Den tredje b\u00f8lge \u2013 p\u00e5 vej mod en\u00a0bev\u00e6gelseskultur. Copenhagen: Lokale- og\u00a0anl\u00e6gsfonden<\/li>\n<li>http:\/\/www.loa-fonden.dk\/cache\/article\/file\/Den_tredje_boelge.pdf.\u00a0Accessed January 4, 2006.<\/li>\n<li>Ministry of Health (1989). The health promotion programme of the Government\u00a0of Denmark.\u00a0Copenhagen.<\/li>\n<li>Ministry of Health (1999). The Danish Government Programme on Public\u00a0Health and Health\u00a0Promotion 1999-2008 \u00a0http:\/\/www.folkesundhed.dk\/media\/detgamlefolkesundhedsprogr.pdf.\u00a0Accessed January 7, 2006.<\/li>\n<li>National Board of Health (1997). Official Guidelines for the implementation\u00a0of Physical Activity at\u00a0Workplaces. Copenhagen.<\/li>\n<li>National Board of Health (2002). Sundhedsstyrelsen: Befolkningens motivation\u00a0og barrierer for\u00a0fysisk aktivitet. Copenhagen.<\/li>\n<li>National Board of Health (2006). Sundhedsfremmeordninger p\u00e5 arbejdspladser\u00a02005<\/li>\n<li>http:\/\/www.sst.dk\/publ\/Publ2006\/CFF\/Sundhedsfremme_05\/Sundhedsfremme_05.pdf.\u00a0Accessed march 7, 2006.<\/li>\n<li>National Centre for Workplace Health Promotion (2005) Borgerrettet forebyggelse\u00a0og<\/li>\n<li>sundhedsfremme p\u00e5 arbejdspladsen http:\/\/www.ncsa.dk\/fileadmin\/template\/ncsa\/pdf_filer\/Kommunalforebyggelse.pdf.\u00a0Accessed January 10, 2006.<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/www.sjweh.fi\/show_abstract.php?author_id=1767\">Nurminen,<\/a>\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.sjweh.fi\/show_abstract.php?author_id=1767\">E<\/a>., <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sjweh.fi\/show_abstract.php?author_id=627\">Malmivaara,<\/a>\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.sjweh.fi\/show_abstract.php?author_id=627\">A.<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sjweh.fi\/show_abstract.php?author_id=666\">Ilmarinen,<\/a>\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.sjweh.fi\/show_abstract.php?author_id=666\">J.<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sjweh.fi\/show_abstract.php?author_id=1768\">Ylstalo,<\/a>\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.sjweh.fi\/show_abstract.php?author_id=1768\">P<\/a>., <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sjweh.fi\/show_abstract.php?author_id=747\">Mutanen,<\/a>\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.sjweh.fi\/show_abstract.php?author_id=747\">P.<\/a>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sjweh.fi\/show_abstract.php?author_id=1769\">Ahonen,<\/a>\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.sjweh.fi\/show_abstract.php?author_id=1769\">G.<\/a> &amp; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sjweh.fi\/show_abstract.php?author_id=1770\">Aro,<\/a>\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.sjweh.fi\/show_abstract.php?author_id=1770\">T.<\/a> (2002) Effectiveness of a worksite exercise program with respect to perceived work ability and sick leaves among women with physical work. Scand J Work Environ Health, 28 (2), 85-93.<\/li>\n<li>Ratzan, S.C., Filerman, G.L. &amp; LeSar, J.W. (2000). Attaining Global\u00a0Health: Challenges and Opportunities. Population Bulletin, 55[1].<\/li>\n<li>US Department of Health and Human Services (1999). Promoting Physical\u00a0Activity. Champaign: Human Kinetics Publishers.<\/li>\n<li>WHO (2003) Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases. Geneva.<\/li>\n<li>WHO (2004) Global strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.who.int\/dietphysicalactivity\/en\/\">http:\/\/www.who.int\/dietphysicalactivity\/en\/<\/a>.\u00a0Accessed January 4, 2006.<\/li>\n<li>Wilson, M.G., Dejoy, D.M., Jorgensen, C.M. &amp; Crump, C.J. (1999) Health\u00a0Promotion Programs in Small Worksites: Results of a National Survey. \u00a0American\u00a0Journal of Health Promotion, 13, 358-65.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<div class=\"submitted\">Submitted by: Thomas Skovgaard (corresponding author) &amp; Finn Berggren<\/div>\n<p>Abstract <\/p>\n<p><em>Purpose: <\/em>This study describes the prevalence of physical activity<br \/>\n        programs at Danish workplaces with one-hundred or more employees<\/p>\n<p><em>Design:<\/em> Cross-sectional<\/p>\n<p><em>Setting:<\/em> Denmark<\/p>\n<p><em>Subjects:<\/em> All private and public workplaces of the designated<br \/>\n        size (n=2422).<\/p>\n<p><em>Measures:<\/em> A two-phase research model was used. Phase 1 consisted<br \/>\n        of telephone interviews involving all workplaces. Phase 2 was conducted<br \/>\n        using a structured, self-administered questionnaire which elicited more<br \/>\n        detailed descriptions of workplaces identified as promoting physical activity<br \/>\n        (n=449). Response rates were 92% and 69% in Phases 1 and 2 respectively.\n      <\/p>\n<p><em>Data Analysis:<\/em> Data were analyzed using StatView statistical<br \/>\n        software.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_options":[]},"categories":[292,291,296],"tags":[25,8,70,75],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4btio-3Y","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":3894,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/tools-and-benefits-of-periodization-developing-an-annual-training-plan-and-promoting-performance-improvements-in-athletes\/","url_meta":{"origin":246,"position":0},"title":"Tools and Benefits of Periodization: Developing an Annual Training Plan and Promoting Performance Improvements in Athletes","date":"August 5, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Michael B. Phillips, Jake A. Lockert, and LaNise D. Rosemond Corresponding Author: Jake Lockert, MA 810 Quadrangle TTU Box 5043 Cookeville, TN 38505 jalockert42@students.tntech.edu 423-779-7127 Jake Lockert works at Tennessee Technological University in Cookeville, TN as research assistant in the department of Exercise Science, Physical Education, and Wellness Tools\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Sports Coaching&quot;","img":{"alt_text":"Figure 1 Matveyev Model of Periodization","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/Figure-1-Matveyev-Model-of-Periodization.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":71,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/ioc-culture-and-olympic-education-forum-thesis-on-culture\/","url_meta":{"origin":246,"position":1},"title":"IOC Culture and Olympic Education Forum : Thesis on Culture and Olympism","date":"February 13, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Dr. Ren Hai In the human species individuals are born cultureless. Ancient Greeks successfully used sport in building up their brilliant civilizations. Impacts of culture and education on sport are undeniable. Sport is not only the exalting of physical activities. \"To place everywhere sport at the service of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Sports History&quot;","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":42,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/youth-risk-behavior-surveillance-systems-survey\/","url_meta":{"origin":246,"position":2},"title":"Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Systems Survey","date":"February 11, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Center for Disease Control 36.4% of high school students smoked cigarettes during the past month, while 16.7% smoked cigarettes on 20 or more days during the past month, and 9.3% used smokeless tobacco. Only 29.3% of high school students ate five or more servings of fruits and vegetables\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Contemporary Sports Issues&quot;","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":150,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/parents-motivations-for-enrolling-children-in-a-private-gymnastic-program\/","url_meta":{"origin":246,"position":3},"title":"Parents&#8217; Motivations for Enrolling Children in a Private Gymnastic Program","date":"February 22, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Jenny Wald, MA Abstract","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Sports Facilities&quot;","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":250,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/a-study-of-gambling-activity-in-a-ncaa-division-ii-institution\/","url_meta":{"origin":246,"position":4},"title":"A Study of Gambling Activity in a NCAA Division II Institution","date":"September 2, 2006","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Frank Butts Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine both the overall and the sports specific gambling activity among athletes and non-athletes enrolled in a Southern, regional National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division II university. The findings were contrasted to the results of a 2003 NCAA\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Contemporary Sports Issues&quot;","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":40,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/international-physical-fitness-test-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":246,"position":5},"title":"International Physical Fitness Test","date":"February 11, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: United States Sports Academy in cooperation with the General Organization of Youth and Sport (State of Bahrain) FOREWARD The United States Sports Academy, in cooperation with the Supreme Council for Youth and Sport, presents the Arab world with its own International Physical Fitness Test Manual based on norms\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Sports Exercise Science&quot;","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=246"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6662,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246\/revisions\/6662"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=246"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=246"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=246"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}