Evidence-informed recommendations for constructing and disseminating messages supplementing the new Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines

Several countries (e.g., United States, Canada, United Kingdom) and international organizations (e.g., World Health Organization) have recently released new or updated physical activity guidelines [9‐13]. These clinical practice guidelines were created through rigorous systematic review and development processes. (c.f., [10]). The CPAG in particular were developed in accordance with the AGREE II [8]. As a whole, these guidelines reflect the most up-to-date evidence for the frequency, intensity, duration and type of physical activity necessary to achieve health benefits. The guidelines do not, however, provide specific information aimed to persuade people to become more active. Thus, to motivate people to become active, the guidelines must be supplemented with messages that convey how to achieve the recommended activity level and why this is relevant to them (i.e., motivational messages). The responsibility for delivering these motivational messages largely falls to stakeholder organizations and practitioners disseminating the guidelines through their physical activity promotion initiatives (e.g., ad campaigns, brochures, websites). Thus to optimize uptake of the guidelines, organizations and practitioners need to be informed about the new guidelines, and given strategies for constructing motivational messages. To address this need among Canadian organizations, we undertook a two-phase process for developing recommendations for constructing messages to supplement the new CPAG specifically. In Phase 1, a systematic process was used to review the relevant literature. In Phase 2, an expert panel convened to develop the practical recommendations for the constructing messages to supplement the CPAG. The purpose of this case study is to provide an overview of these processes and a model for developing practice recommendations in other health behaviour change domains.

A systematic process to inform the development of messages supplementing the CPAG was undertaken by the Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology (CSEP). Initially, the CSEP received funding from the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) and the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch of Health Canada to support an evidence-informed review of the physical activity and messaging literature [14]. With additional funding from PHAC, the CSEP commissioned two systematic reviews of specific messaging and behaviour change techniques [15, 16]. The major conclusions from these three reviews were as follows:

● Brawley and Latimer [14] recommended that: a) messages should be informative, thought-provoking, clear, and persuasive while targeting constructs from behavior change theories (i.e., self-efficacy) and b) moderators that influence message impact should be identified and considered when creating messages and messaging interventions.

● Latimer, Brawley, and Bassett [15] concluded that although additional research is needed, tailored, gain-framed, and self-efficacy messages seemed to be promising strategies for constructing physical activity messages.

● Rhodes and Pfaeffi [16] identified notable gaps in the physical activity intervention literature and suggested that when developing messages supplementing the guidelines, there may be benefit in emphasizing aspects of self-regulation, self-efficacy and affective outcome expectancies.

Taken together, these three reviews provided the foundational principles for developing the message construction recommendations (Phase 2).

In Phase 2 of the message development process, an expert panel was convened. The panel was responsible for interpreting the evidence from Phase 1 and developing practical recommendations for constructing and disseminating messages supplementing the new CPAG. We followed a systematic protocol modified from the AGREE II Instrument [8] to ensure rigor, comprehensiveness and transparency in the process of developing the recommendations. The timeline for the project is outlined in Figure 1. The development process was conducted within the mandate of the CSEP program activities. Reporting upon the process including stakeholder evaluations represents secondary use of anonymous information. In accordance with the Tri-Council Policy statement these activities do not fall in the scope of research ethics review.

The objectives and the practical questions addressed by the recommendations were determined initially by the project leaders in consultation with three key stakeholders – CSEP, ParticipACTION, and PHAC. These three organizations were involved in defining the scope and purpose because they are considered leaders in physical activity promotion within Canada and were slated to jointly disseminate the CPAG. The objectives and practical questions addressed by our recommendations are listed in Additional file 1.

The expert workgroups determined the target populations for each of the messages and recommendations specific to each CPAG. The target populations were determined by reviewing evidence of key social influences on physical activity behavior (c.f. the list of resources included in Additional file 2). The target populations and rationale for these populations are outlined in Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and the Additional files 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

The CSEP, ParticipACTION, and the PHAC in consultation with the lead researchers determined the key stakeholders (end users) of the recommendations. The recommendations specifically were directed towards organizations (government and non-governmental) and individual health professionals using the CPAG to promote physical activity participation.

Key stakeholders were involved at multiple points throughout the process. For example, the project was directed by CSEP, ParticipACTION, and PHAC – with input from researchers with expertise in theoretical approaches to physical activity promotion and messaging. Twenty-eight experts from across Canada participated in small workgroups during a 2-day meeting. Experts included researchers from multiple disciplines, health professionals, and representatives from government and non-governmental organizations. The table included in Additional file 8 lists workgroup members, their expertise, and their roles in the guideline development process. Once developed, the recommendations were reviewed through an online consultation by 81 end users.

We developed the messaging recommendations through a multi-step process. One week in advance of the meeting, delegates were provided with a set of four to six articles from the evidence base to review. The resources provided to each workgroup are listed in a table included in Additional file 2. At the start of the meeting the project directors also delivered a 30-minute presentation summarizing key points to consider from the evidence base and the PHAC representative informed the group of the findings from their recent consultation process. Next, the workgroups participated in a series of structured discussions to formulate the guidelines. The workgroups were required to support each of their discussion points using the evidence base provided or supplemental evidence they had sought out independently. The larger group reviewed the key discussion points that emerged from each workgroup. Following the meeting, a summary document was circulated to the workgroups for review and revision. All recommendations and their associated evidence included in the final document are described in Additional files 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

The recommendations have direct practical implications. The practical benefit is that they are the first set of evidence-based recommendations for creating messages supplementing physical activity guidelines. The application of these recommendations to practice has the potential to increase the effectiveness of the uptake of physical activity guidelines through the creation of message-based resources and tools.

The larger group also discussed procedures for updating the messaging recommendations. Due to resource limitations within the end users’ organizations, regular updates to the messages in the absence of a subsequent revision to the CPAG were not viewed as feasible. The consensus was that there already were limited resources for the release of the new CPAG let alone for constantly updating materials promoting the guidelines. The CPAG are slated for review and update every three to five years [10]. This would be optimal timing for updating the messaging recommendations as well; likely new clarification messages would be necessary at minimum.

For each CPAG, multiple recommendations were provided to allow flexibility in formulating messages. To create a concise resource for practitioners, the first author extracted these recommendations from the final summary document and created a series of information sheets. The information sheets include the recommendations and a preamble stating the objective of the recommendations. These information sheets were evaluated through a web-based survey by 81 practitioners including representatives from all levels of government (36.9%), fitness professionals (20.0%), staff/board members from non-governmental organizations (18.5%), and allied health professionals (10.8%). Each recommendation was rated on a 7-point scale for clarity, comprehensiveness, and ease of use. Participants also indicated their agreement with the recommendation and their likelihood of using the recommendation in practice. Overall, the responses to the survey were positive with all means falling above the scale midpoint and ranging from 4.48 to 5.43.

There were several suggestions to identify additional message target groups and channels of dissemination. Many participants requested additional details, examples, and resources. The specific recommendations were not modified in accordance with these requests. There was not adequate evidence to extend beyond the target groups and channels of dissemination already identified in the recommendations. Providing additional examples and resources was beyond the parameters of the recommendations. To address this feedback, the scope of the recommendations was clarified in the general preamble added to the beginning of the recommendations.

The process was funded by CSEP and PHAC. Although these organizations participated in the process of developing the recommendations, their involvement did not influence the recommendations for creating messages. Their involvement did influence discussions related to facilitators and barriers to implementation, resource implications and evaluation. Delegates from these organizations were able to present the real challenges facing the release of the new CPAG and the production of supplemental materials. The depth of the discussion related to evaluation was blunted by uncertainties related to available funding.

None of the workgroup members declared a conflict of interest.

Through a systematic process guided by the AGREE II, we developed evidence-based specific recommendations for constructing and disseminating messages supplementing the new CPAG for children, youth, adults, and older adults. Recommendations also were developed to raise awareness of the new guidelines in general guided process. The recommendations are summarized in Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. The rationale supporting these recommendations is included in the Additional files 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

At the time of the consensus meeting, several opportunities for uptake of the messaging recommendations were anticipated through the three key stakeholder groups involved in the project. Initially, we intended our recommendations to inform the development of messages accompanying the CPAG when they were released in January 2011 (two months after the consensus meeting). This uptake did not come to fruition due to changes in our stakeholder involvement and delay in producing the final messaging recommendations.

While some supplementary materials were produced for the release of the CPAG, they were limited. Some of the materials did incorporate content that aligned with our recommendations.

To our knowledge, our efforts for constructing and disseminating messages supplementing the new CPAG represent the first set of evidence-informed recommendations for creating messages supplementing physical activity guidelines. Given that we drew from existing evidence of effective messaging interventions (e.g., VERB, ParticipACTION [22, 25]), these recommendations represent an accumulation of best practices in the field of physical activity promotion, health communications, and public health intervention.

Although the messaging recommendations have potential for shaping practice, their limitations must be acknowledged. Our recommendations do not have direct health benefits– they target an intermediary group (message developers) rather than the end users per se. However, if practitioners effectively apply the recommendations, there are potential indirect effects on health because the resulting messages will promote physical activity in accordance with the new CPAG.

The recommendations are further limited as a result of methodological constraints – many of which could easily have been addressed by involving a guideline development methodologist as part of the research team from the onset. First, the evidence-base was determined by the primary authors with suggestions from expert panel members. It also included findings from an unpublished government report that included newly collected data critical to informing the guidelines. Rigorous systematic review methods that include evaluation of study quality and strict inclusion criteria are optimal.

Second, the messaging recommendations were not sent for external review outside of the panel of experts who participated in the development process. The panel had substantial breadth in expertise; nonetheless external reviewers might have suggested modifications to strengthen the recommendations. Had we opted for additional external review, we could have sought the opinions of international experts, health communication technology researchers, and marketing and advertising professionals as individuals with this type of expertise were underrepresented in our workgroups. Indeed, the addition of individuals with expertise in the application of technology for health communications would have brought forward emerging evidence of promising technology-based approaches for disseminating our messages. With regards to marketing experts, only one panel member had specific expertise in this area. Public health often neglects to consult with this highly knowledgeable group of professionals. This shortcoming is unfortunate as marketing experts have potential to enhance reach of messages within the target audience and assist in designing visual, graphic and print copy of the final messages.

Third, we did not formally engage a methodologist throughout our process to participate in evaluation of the evidence, and to assess our process [26]. However, herein we report our process as transparently as possible. The objective of AGREE II is to promote transparency in the guideline development process. To ensure transparency in this case study, all of the steps undertaken in developing the messaging recommendation in relation to the AGREE II are outlined in the table included in Additional file 1.

To our knowledge, this case study represents the first application of international standards for guideline development set out in the AGREE II Instrument to the development of practical recommendations specifically aimed to inform health promotion practice. Of benefit, the AGREE II Instrument provided a foundation for guiding the steps in the recommendation development process, for determining the make-up of our expert panel, and for reporting the process. The Instrument was quite easily adapted to suit our objective. Modifications primarily centered around shifting the guideline focus from patient groups to guideline message developers, using a modified evidence-review process, and considering the practical implications of the recommendations versus the direct health implications. With further development and validation, the adapted AGREE II Instrument has potential to become the standard for developing evidence-based health behavior change recommendations and, more generally, knowledge tools that facilitate the application of existing clinical practice guidelines.

We encountered practical challenges developing our messaging recommendations. Final messaging recommendations occurred over 1 year following our consensus meeting. The messaging consensus meeting was held in November 2010; the recommendations were not finalized until July 2011 and evaluated by stakeholders in January 2012 – more than one year following the consensus meeting. The lag could have been addressed by setting and adhering to clear time deadlines for the AGREE II steps following the consensus meeting.

Two factors impaired progress: a) the timeline for finalizing the recommendations and b) the absence of funds to develop messages supporting the guidelines. The timeline for developing recommendations was ambitious. The consensus panel meeting was held in November 2010, recommendations were needed by the key stakeholder groups almost immediately to begin production of messages to accompany the guidelines for a January 2011 launch. This timeline would have been feasible with adequate personnel to support the initiative; however, in the absence of resources, no personnel were available. As a temporary measure, the three key stakeholders were provided with a summary report from the expert panel to use in preparation for the guideline launch.

Finally, at the time of the consensus meeting it seemed promising that some resources would be allocated to developing materials supplementing the guidelines that would apply our recommendations. However, shortly after the meeting, the partnership between the three key stakeholders (CSEP, PHAC, ParticipACTION) dissolved. Plans for developing a comprehensive set of supplemental materials were halted and the immediate need for message construction recommendations was lessened.

As a result of these practical challenges, the application of the recommendations has been limited [27]. Much should be learned from this lack of uptake. While there was substantial interest and even excitement about producing recommendations to facilitate the application of CPAG, the lack of a feasible and sustainable plan for implementation hindered the application of the messaging recommendations. The dissolution of the partnership between the key stakeholders also dampened enthusiasm; the potential for implementation was substantially greater when all key stakeholders were committed to disseminating the CPAG and the accompanying motivational messages developed in accordance with our messaging recommendations in partnership. Our messaging recommendations represent advancement in knowledge translation efforts by researchers and stakeholders but highlight the fact that knowledge translation is a multi-step process that requires an enduring commitment of resources, financial and personnel, from all parties involved.