Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
The Back Pages

Physical activity may be good for you but we are not the key players

Domhnall MacAuley
British Journal of General Practice 2006; 56 (532): 888.
Domhnall MacAuley
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Lets get real. General practice cannot cure the cycle of creeping inactivity, bulging waistbands and obesity. This is a medical problem with a potentially huge healthcare burden but, it does not have a medical solution.

We need to be clear about what we can do, because it is easier to pass responsibility to the medical profession, and primary care in particular, than face up to the implications of making a serious commitment to those changes necessary to reduce overall calorie intake and increase the population's physical activity.

Physical inactivity is a social problem. It is a function of our computerised, mechanised and immobilised society. We are a low activity convenience society fed by high calorie convenience foods. The primitive hunting and gathering instincts are focused more on the struggle in the shopping centre, than on any physical activity. Doctors cannot solve this problem.

General practice is the care of the individual. Our attempts at health promotion in primary prevention have had remarkably little success. Cardiovascular risk-factor reduction looked to have potential, and the problems we addressed were important and relevant. But, the impact was minimal. Even well-funded nurse-led innovative projects like OXCheck had modest impact with major resources.1 Such findings were in keeping with the major systematic review of randomised controlled trials, which suggested that risk-factor interventions had a limited role and that other government-led interventions could be more effective.2 And, if we wish to improve diet and physical activity levels, there are important lessons to be learned from our interventions in smoking.3

Evidence from high quality observational, cross-sectional and cohort studies is clear. Physical activity is good for you, and obesity is associated with inactivity. But, that does not mean that interventions to increase activity will be successful in reducing obesity. Efforts to increase physical activity through primary care have had limited success. A number of studies have shown that it is possible to create programmes to increase physical activity (including exercise prescription), address barriers, record advice given, and intention to increase activity — but most are process studies and few have long-term outcomes. The most recent systematic review (Cochrane) on efforts to increase physical activity4 has shown that interventions to increase physical activity are, at best, moderately effective. Similarly, methods to reduce obesity include efforts to change overall lifestyle with specific interventions advising combinations of diet and exercise. Lifestyle interventions have shown only small amounts of weight loss of marginal clinical relevance and while we have little evidence of what works in preventing and treating obesity, research does show us what doesn't.5

GPs themselves have a realistic view of what is possible. GPs believe that obesity is the responsibility of the patient and do not consider obesity management to be within their professional domain.6 Patients think otherwise. They tend to blame an internal control problem and would like a professional-based solution, but doctors favour a patient-led approach.7

There is an Olympic dimension. The 2012 Olympics focuses greater emphasis on the benefits of sport and exercise. Indeed, the Royal College of General Practitioners has been pivotal in creating the new Faculty of Sports and Exercise Medicine and establishing specialist training. We could easily be swept along by this groundswell of enthusiasm and commitment to sport and there is a danger that well-meaning leaders of our profession might agree to the unrealistic inclusion of obesity management through exercise promotion in the Quality and Outcomes Framework.

This is a public health issue. The barriers to physical activity are not issues limited to personal health care. They are predominantly environmental, social, and societal. The solutions are multidisciplinary and cross-departmental. Providing bicycle lanes, making showering facilities available in the workplace, funding creches at the leisure centres, reversing the erosion of sporting activity in schools and the sale of public sporting amenities are not health issues, but have health implications related to physical activity. Making it a primary care problem is the easy option, directing the public gaze away from the need for more integrated and much more expensive social and environmental factors. Let us not be foolish enough to accept responsibility for a task we cannot deliver. There are many aspects of practice where we can make a difference. This is not one.

  • © British Journal of General Practice, 2006.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    1. Coulter A,
    2. Fowler G,
    3. Fuller A,
    4. et al.
    (1995) Effectiveness of health checks conducted by nurses in primary care: final results of the Oxcheck study. BMJ 310:1099–1104.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Ebrahim S,
    2. Smith GD
    (1997) Systematic review of randomised controlled trial of multiple risk factor interventions for preventing coronary heart disease. BMJ 314:1666.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Yach D,
    2. McKee M,
    3. Lopez AD,
    4. Novotny T
    (2005) Improving diet and physical activity: 12 lessons from controlling tobacco smoking. BMJ 330:898–900.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Hillsdon M,
    2. Foster C,
    3. Thorogood M
    (2005) Interventions for promoting physical activity. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD003180.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Jain A
    (2005) Treating obesity in individuals and populations. BMJ 331:1387–1390.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Epstein L,
    2. Ogden J
    (2005) A qualitative study of GPs views of treating obesity. Br J Gen Pract 55(519):750–754.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Ogden J,
    2. Bandara I,
    3. Cohen H,
    4. et al.
    (2001) General practitioners' and patients' models of obesity: whose problem is it? Patient Educ Couns 44(3):227–233.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 56 (532)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 56, Issue 532
November 2006
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Physical activity may be good for you but we are not the key players
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Physical activity may be good for you but we are not the key players
Domhnall MacAuley
British Journal of General Practice 2006; 56 (532): 888.

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Physical activity may be good for you but we are not the key players
Domhnall MacAuley
British Journal of General Practice 2006; 56 (532): 888.
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

The Back Pages

  • The ethics of listening and responding to patients' narratives: implications for practice
  • How big is your society?
  • Evidence-based medicine and Web 2.0: friend or foe?
Show more The Back Pages

Essay

  • ‘Heartsink’ patients in general practice: a defining paper, its impact, and psychodynamic potential
  • Second thoughts about the NHS reforms
  • Good enough care?
Show more Essay

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242