You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 53, Issue 10
  • Movement for Movement: a practical insight into embedding physical activity into the undergraduate medical curriculum exemplified by Lancaster Medical School

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Bright spots
Movement for Movement: a practical insight into embedding physical activity into the undergraduate medical curriculum exemplified by Lancaster Medical School
  1. Ann Bernadette Gates1,2,
  2. Michelle Grace Swainson3,
  3. Rachel Isba3,
  4. Robert G Wheatley3,
  5. Fiona Anne Curtis3
  1. 1 School of Health Sciences, The University of Nottingham, Derby, UK
  2. 2 Faculty of Sport, Health and Wellbeing, Plymouth Marjon University, Plymouth, UK
  3. 3 Lancaster Medical School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Michelle Grace Swainson, Lancaster Medical School, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YD, UK; m.swainson1{at}lancaster.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2018-100243

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Background

    Getting people active and staying active is a major implementation challenge.1 Despite international and national strategic intent, most countries fall woefully short on delivery.2 The objectives of the 2018 WHO Global Action Plan for Physical Activity (GAPPA) clearly require improved education and communication to patients, communities and society on the benefits of physical activity (PA).

    The Movement for Movement ‘community of practice’ was specifically created to deliver this complex, interrelated system change.3

    What is the Movement for Movement?

    Movement for Movement3 embeds PA into the undergraduate healthcare curriculum4 5 and provides current, clinically valuable, evidence-based resources developed by: curators, authors, peer reviewers and student reviewers, and endorsed by the UK Council of Deans of Health. These resources are free to providers of undergraduate medical and healthcare education to support capacity building in the healthcare workforce. An implementation plan in a sample of English medical schools (funded by Public Health England/Sport England in 2017/2018) is complete.6

    This work is recognised as a UK best practice exemplar by the 2018 WHO Europe Physical Activity Fact Sheets7 and the 2018 WHO Europe Physical Activity in the Health Sector report.8 There is also considerable ongoing collaboration to deliver further strategic support and leadership focusing on the valuable ‘social capital’ that healthcare professionals provide across all the GAPPA objectives and specifically the social determinants of health.

    Lancaster University Medical School’s novel approach to embedding PA in the curricula

    Lancaster Medical School pioneered the full implementation of the Movement for Movement resources and is empowering future …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors ABG was the main author for final submission. MGS produced the initial manuscript, provided final review and created the infographic produced for this article. RI and FAC provided both written contribution and editorial review. FAC and RGW have been key to the planning and practical implementation of these resources, and identification of good practice examples, and provided further reviews of the content and style.

    • Funding ABG was originally commissioned and funded by PHE and Sport England.

    • Competing interests ABG is an Honorary Visiting Professor at Plymouth Marjon University, Honorary Associate Professor at The University of Nottingham, a World Heart Federation Emerging Leader’s Programme 2014, Associate Editor for The British Journal of Sports Medicine, a Certified NHS Change Agent and Founder and CEO of Exercise Works! MGS has contributed to the 2018 update of Movement for Movement resources. RI, RGW and FAC have no competing interests.

    • Patient consent Not required.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.