Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Definitions of determinants of physical activity behaviour: process and outcome of consensus from the DE-PASS expert group

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity volume 22, Article number: 34 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Despite extensive research on physical activity behaviour (PAB), consensus is lacking on related terms and definitions, thereby hindering the ability to compare findings between studies and to develop reliable assessment tools. This study therefore aimed to establish consensus on the definitions of key PAB determinants.

Methods

First, an international expert steering committee was established, comprising members of the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) action “DEterminants of Physical ActivitieS in Settings” (DE-PASS). Recently published review-level studies were used to identify key determinants of PAB. Two independent reviewers systematically reviewed the literature to catalogue the range of definitions used for key determinants of PAB (steps 1–2). A two-round modified Delphi survey was conducted online from February to September 2023, to determine the optimal definition for each determinant. In round 1, experts selected the most suitable definition for each of the 41 initially identified determinants. In round 2, experts ranked the appropriateness of the definition selected from round 1 on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined a priori as ≥ 75% agreement on the definition (i.e., ratings of ≥ 4 points). A professional English language expert ensured concise, coherent wording and high-quality editing of the definitions (steps 3–6).

Results

Eighty-five experts in PAB research participated in round 1, and sixty-nine experts in round 2. Consensus of definitions was achieved for 39 of the 41 determinants (88.4%–98.6% agreement). The consensus threshold was not achieved for two determinants: genetic profile and regulation (69.6%) and backyard access/size (73.9%).

Conclusions

The findings of this study offer a consensus-based set of definitions for 39 key determinants of PAB. These definitions can be used homogenously in academic research on physical activity.

Background

Paradoxically, while overwhelming evidence highlights the health benefits that are associated with optimal physical activity [1,2,3], global trends show significant reductions in physical activity. These declines, coupled with an increase in excessive sedentary behaviours [4,5,6,7], have prompted researchers and public health practitioners to investigate the underlying motives for and barriers to physical activity behaviour (PAB) [8,9,10]. Understanding these aspects is crucial for reversing such trends and mitigating their associated health risks. Research in this area has identified numerous determinants of PAB [11], which are commonly categorized into individual, biological [12], environmental [13], psychological [14], behavioural [15], and socio-cultural [16,17,18] factors.

However, a persistent challenge in PAB research lies in the inconsistent definitions of its determinants [19]. For instance, “parental modelling” has been frequently mentioned in the literature as a determinant that influences PAB in youth; yet there are at least four distinct definitions of this term, including: (1) “behaviours that parents engage in to form and maintain interpersonal relationships with other adults, namely their spouses, relatives, and friends” [20]; (2) “a process of observational learning in which the parent's behaviour serves as a stimulus for similar behaviour in their child” [21]; (3) “the idea that parents' physical activity behaviours may directly influence their children's physical activity” [22]; and (4) “parents acting as positive physical activity role models by demonstrating an interest in physical activity and being physically active themselves” [23]. Such inconsistencies in terminology pose a significant obstacle in advancing research and promoting positive PAB; they also hinder comparing between findings across studies, conducting synthesis of evidence, and developing reliable measurement tools. As such, achieving unification and international consensus for these definitions is essential.

To address these obstacles, the aim of this study was to establish a consensus regarding the definitions of key determinants that are highly associated with PAB. By harmonizing the terminology in this field, this effort seeks to enhance the comparability and relevance of future PAB research, fostering clearer communications and collaborations among researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and other stakeholders worldwide.

Methods

Study design

This consensus work was conducted under Work Group 3 of the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) Action CA19101, “DEterminants of Physical ActivitieS in Settings” (DE-PASS, https://depass.eu/), involving academic and practitioner experts in the fields of sport, health, psychological, and social sciences. The methods were structured into two main phases: preliminary work and the modified Delphi study, as outlined by Niederberger & Spranger [24]. Figure 1 illustrates the sequential stages of both the preliminary work (Steps 1–2) and the modified Delphi study (Steps 3–6). A protocol was developed and registered a priori on the Open Science framework [25].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Overview of the preliminary work (Phase 1) and the modified Delphi study (Phase 2)

Full size image

Phase 1: the preliminary work

The two steps that comprised this phase were conducted by the steering committee, as detailed below.

Step 1. Establishing a list of key PAB determinants

From October to December 2021, the six steering committee experts examined the conclusions of recent academic research articles from peer-reviewed journals, with an emphasis on umbrella and systematic reviews [10, 12,13,14,15,16,17,18, 26,27,28]. One main source was the DEterminants of DIet and Physical ACtivity (DEDIPAC), a European joint-programme initiative [19]. Determinants were also selected based on the preliminary results of a recently published systematic review and meta-analysis [29], conducted by members of the DE-PASS project. Following this process, the six steering committee experts examined and discussed all extracted determinants. The 41 final determinants were then systematically categorized into one of the following five domains:

  1. 1)

    Individual and biological factors: (1) age; (2) body fat; (3) education attainment level; (4) ethnicity; (5) genetic profile and regulation; (6) health status; (7) heart rate; (8) household income; (9) life events; (10) physical fitness; (11) setting; (12) sex; (13) socio-economic status; and (14) stress.

  2. 2)

    Psychological factors: (1) enjoyment; (2) mental fatigue; (3) motivation / goal setting; (4) parental (role) modelling; (5) perceived behavioural control; (6) perceived competency; (7) self-efficacy; and (8) self-regulation.

  3. 3)

    Behavioural factors: (1) active transport; (2) independent active mobility; (3) PAB history and patterns; (4) participation in organised sports; (5) phone usage; (6) sedentary behaviour; and (7) sleep.

  4. 4)

    Environmental factors: (1) access to sport/recreational facilities; (2) availability of physical activity programmes and equipment within schools and community; (3) backyard access/size; (4) green space access; (5) neighbourhood characteristics; (6) physical activity provision and ethos in the setting; (7) provision proximity (parks/playground); and (8) time outdoors.

  5. 5)

    Socio-cultural factors: (1) companionship; (2) cultural perspectives on PAB; (3) group, family and peer support; and (4) social contact.

Step 2. Extracting definitions from the literature

To identify the existing definitions of the 41 determinants, a comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed. The search strategy employed the proximity search feature, as a means for locating articles where the terms of the determinants (e.g., age, sex, socio-economic status) combined with the words “defined,” “define,” “defines,” “defining,” or “describe” were within three words of each other in the title or abstract; to do so, the following search query was applied: [Title/Abstract: ~ 3]. This was conducted discretely for each determinant. Additionally, phrase searching using quotation marks was performed via Ovid MEDLINE databases and the Google Scholar search engine. The determinants were searched together with phrases such as “refers to”, “is defined,” “was defined,” “definition of,” “define,” “defines,” “defining,” “is described,” or “was described.” The search was limited to articles written in English, with the first 500 results being screened, ordered by relevance.

Two of the steering committee experts (JD and JB-S) screened the retrieved articles independently, while also seeking potential definitions of the determinants – by manually searching the Medical Subject Headings, dictionaries, policy documents, websites, and reports of organisations related to sports, health, psychology, and social sciences. All definitions were organized in a structured table format, together with their corresponding references. In cases where no definition was found, the determinant from the list of 41 items was still included in the modified Delphi study, detailed below.

Phase 2: the modified Delphi study

This phase included four steps, as detailed in the following sections.

Step 3. Forming the Delphi panel

After creating a comprehensive list of 41 determinants and their definitions, the committee approached 92 members of the COST Action CA19101, inviting them to take part in the Delphi rounds (steps 5 and 6) of this study. These members were from a wide range of disciplines, work settings (e.g., universities, government offices, and hospitals), and countries (more than 30). Active members from diverse scientific backgrounds and at various career stages were invited to form a steering committee. The committee was composed of six international experts (JD, JB-S, JC, MKG, JCR, and YN) — three men and three women — from different countries: Portugal (n = 2), Spain (n = 1), Norway (n = 1), Czechia (n = 1), and Israel (n = 1). The committee met on a bi-monthly schedule.

Step 4. Preliminary consensus round

To streamline the definitions identified from the literature, a preliminary consensus round was conducted in October 2022, with the participation of five of the steering committee members. The sixth member (JB-S), who chaired the procedure, did not participate – to maintain independence and objectivity. For each of the 41 determinants, the five members individually rated the definitions on a scale of 1 (worst definition) to 3 (best definition), according to the following four criteria: (1) universal applicability; (2) broad relevance; (3) clarity; (4) and comprehensibility. The scores for each definition were then summed and ranked in descending order; the top three definitions for each determinant were then selected to be used in Step 5. In the event of a tie between definitions, these were discussed among the committee experts until consensus was reached, resulting in three highest-scoring definitions. Where fewer than three definitions were identified for a particular determinant, this was explicitly stated. In this preliminary round, the a-priori threshold for consensus between the five experts was set at 100%.

Step 5. Modified Delphi round 1

Conducted during February–April 2023, the aim of this round was to select the most appropriate definition for each of the 41 PAB determinants, based on the preliminary work of the steering committee. An online survey via Google forms (Google, USA) was distributed to the panel members. Complete anonymity and confidentiality were assured to all participants. After providing their informed consent via this online platform, socio-demographic data were gathered, including age, sex, academic qualifications, and country of residence. Next, the 41 determinants were presented, each with the three optimal definitions. These were organized into the five categories detailed above (individual and biological; psychological; behavioural; environmental; and socio-cultural). The members were then asked to select the one definition that they perceived as most suitable for each determinant. If no definition was deemed suitable, or if the definitions were lacking, the members could suggest an alternative definition, supported by a reference. Comments regarding the definitions were also encouraged. Alternatively, the members could select the following option: “I do not want to answer this question,” if, for example, the concept was outside their area of expertise.

After completing the modified Delphi round 1, each of the six steering committee experts analysed the collected data independently. If a definition was widely accepted (by ≥ 75% among the panel members), it was automatically included in the next stage of the study. If a definition was deemed unsuitable by the panel members (< 75% acceptance), the steering committee refined its wording, based on the highest-ranked definition from the survey and on the members’ feedback, if available. When the gap between the two highest rating definitions was relatively small (< 10%), the committee considered combining elements from multiple definitions, to improve clarity and relevance. During this individual analysis process, the committee experts also examined the alternative definitions that were provided by the panel members, as well as any other comments that they may have offered. In this round and in the following one, the a-priori threshold for consensus between the panel members was set at ≥ 75% [30].

Step 6. Modified Delphi round 2

In August–September 2023, an online survey via Google forms (Google, USA) was distributed to the same experts as in round 1. Similar to Step 5, the members provided their informed consent to take part in this survey, as well as socio-demographic data. Complete anonymity and confidentiality were again assured to all participants. In this round 2, the 41 determinants were presented to the panel members – each with the most suitable definition, resulting from round 1. For each determinant, the members were asked to rate the suitability of the given definition, on a Likert-like scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The a-priori threshold for consensus was set at 75%, whereby at least 75% of the members had to agree strongly (5) or somewhat agree (4) with a particular definition. The results were then categorised into two groups: (1) determinants that met the 75% threshold, and which were presented during the final steering committee meeting for concluding revisions; and (2) determinants that did not meet this threshold.

Revision of the definitions and final consensus

The concluding steering committee meeting was moderated by the leader of DE-PASS Deliverable D3.3. Input from round 2 was consolidated, and revisions of the definitions were made as needed. The aim was to compile a conclusive list of agreed-upon definitions for the 41 determinants. During this meeting, the six experts individually evaluated each of the proposed definitions from Step 6, making minor refinements as needed – to standardize the English usage and ensure a consistent academic tone. At this stage, a professional English language expert was engaged, to ensure clarity, coherence, and high-quality English. Definitions that did not meet the agreement threshold in Step 6 were excluded from further analysis.

Results

Preliminary consensus round

In this round, at least three definitions were available for 34 of the 41 determinants. For the remaining seven determinants, only two or fewer definitions were available: (1) genetic profile and regulation; (2) backyard access/size; (3) physical activity provision and ethos in setting; (4) PAB history and patterns; (5) access to sport/recreational facilities; (6) availability of physical activity programmes and equipment within schools and communities; and (7) cultural perspectives on PAB. Following this round, a total of 117 definitions were included in the modified Delphi Round 1, including 107 definitions from the expert’s review of the literature and ten that were proposed by the committee experts and supported by references. The most frequent source of definitions in this preliminary consensus round were the MeSH database (Medical Subject Headings) with 16 definitions, the APA Dictionary of Psychology with 15 definitions, and a Dictionary of Public Health with 13 definitions (see Additional file 1).

Characteristics of the experts in the modified Delphi rounds

Out of the original 92 members who were invited to participate in the modified Delphi rounds, 85 members participated in the first modified Delphi round, and 69 experts participated in the second one. Table 1 presents the socio-demographic characteristics of these members. Sex representation was approximately equal across the sample. The most highly represented age category was 25–39 years in rounds 1 and 2 (42.4% and 36.1%, respectively). Additionally, most members were affiliated with a university and held a doctoral degree. The members were from a total of 32 countries, highlighting diverse international representation in this study.

Table 1 Characteristics of the Delphi panel members in rounds 1 and 2
Full size table

Modified Delphi round 1: identifying the optimal definitions

In this round, levels of agreement between the 85 panel members varied greatly. For 24 determinants, 50% agreed on the same definition. For 13 determinants, 50%–74% agreed on the same definition. The consensus threshold of ≥ 75% was only achieved for definitions of four determinants: (1) neighbourhood characteristics, 75.3%; (2) cultural perspective on PABs, 76.5%; (3) access to sport/recreational facilities, 78.8%; and (4) availability of physical activity programmes and equipment within schools and community, 88.2%. Finally, for 33 determinants, at least one member provided a comment or proposed an additional/alternative definition from the literature.

The committee experts decided that the definitions for the following eight determinants would remain unchanged in round 2: (1) socio-economic status; (2) education attainment level; (3) setting; (4) physical fitness; (5) self-efficacy; (6) sedentary behaviour; (7) sleep; and (8) social contact. Definitions for 32 determinants were modified, mostly involving minor changes – such as the use of British English, avoiding exclusive focus on specific age groups or geographic areas, and adjusting the length of these definitions. Based on expert feedback, a new definition for one determinant, companionship, was established. The final version of all definitions following round 1 is available in Additional file 2.

Modified Delphi round 2: identifying the definitions with the highest score

In this round, the best definition for each determinant was identified. The required ≥ 75% consensus threshold was seen for 39 of the 41 determinants (mean score = 88.4%). The highest agreement (98.6%) was seen for educational attainment level. This threshold was not achieved for two determinants: (1) genetic profile and regulation (69.6%); and (2) backyard access/size (73.9%).

Final consensus

The steering committee held an online meeting to discuss and finalize the definitions of the 39 determinants for which consensus had been reached (see Additional file 3). Table 2 exemplifies how the final definition of one determinant (age) evolved throughout the two rounds of the modified Delphi study.

Table 2 Evolution of a definition of a PAB determinant—age
Full size table

Most of the changes, referred to as linguistic refinements, involved adding missing indefinite articles, changing prepositions, modifying singular and plural forms, altering the word order, or unifying terms such as “person” and “individual” across definitions. As mentioned, a professional English language editor assisted the steering committee, to ensure the uniform use of British English and an academic tone across all definitions. The original wording was only maintained for four definitions: (1) life events, derived from the MeSH term “life change events” [31]; (2) sedentary behaviour [32]; (3) self-efficacy [33]; and (4) sleep [34]. For 11 determinants, new definitions were established following the modified Delphi study: (1) setting; (2) PAB history and patterns; (3) phone usage; (4) participation in organised sports; (5) green space access; (6) physical activity provision and ethos in setting; (7) provision proximity (parks/playground); (8) access to sports/recreational facilities; (9) time outdoors, availability of physical activity programmes and equipment within schools and the community; (10) cultural perspective on PABs; and (11) group, family, and peer support. The consensus on the final versions of definitions is provided in Table 3.

Table 3 The final version of the definitions for the PAB determinants
Full size table

Discussion

The aim of this study was to articulate uniform terminology regarding key PAB determinants. This was conducted by examining and synthesising diverse definitions from the literature and incorporating the perspectives of cross-disciplinary experts from more than 30 countries – building on the approach seen in previous studies. When investigating PAB, the absence of systematic and consistent terminology undermines the methodological quality of related studies, complicates the clear interpretation and generalisability of findings, and hinders the translation of knowledge into effective policies and active living intervention strategies [59]. The systematic modified Delphi process applied in this study, and enhanced by expert input, led to high levels of agreement regarding PAB definitions, effectively bridging cultural and interdisciplinary differences. The finalised definitions of the 39 determinants offer a robust foundation for adopting a common language for conducting research on PAB.

Yet consensus was not reached on the definitions of two determinants: (1) genetic profile and regulation; and (2) backyard access/size. Over the past decade, researchers have hypothesised that genetic variations may influence the propensity for physically active lifestyles. Yet the role of these genotype variations in exercise adaptations remains unclear, as the identifying of specific genetic factors which are linked to diverse responses towards physical activity is limited [10, 60]. The lack of consensus regarding the term “genetic profile and regulation” likely stems from the lack of a clear definition of this term prior to conducting related studies. The steering committee experts propose the alternative “polygenic score” [61] term, which, although not widely used or clearly defined in the PAB literature, has potential to serve as an alternative PAB determinant and should be examined in future studies. For the second term that lacked consensus regarding a suitable definition – “backyard access/size” – about 20% of the panel members in round 1 wrote that they do not wish to answer this question. This indicates a degree of uncertainty or lack of familiarity with this term, despite its use in the scientific literature [62, 63]. The term “backyard” may have been too specific, overlooking the large variability in housing configurations. Terms such as “yard” or “private green space” [64] are likely to be more inclusive.

Generally, for all definitions of determinants that contained the word “access” or “accessibility”, the panel members noted inconsistencies in how the term “access” or “accessibility” was applied. Specifically, they suggested that "access" or “accessibility” for private purposes (e.g. backyard) should be defined in binary terms, simply indicating whether an individual “has access” or “does not have access.” In contrast, when these terms refer to public areas (e.g. green space or sports/recreational facilities), the definition should incorporate a specific measure of distance, time, desirability, or safety (e.g., perimeter, walking time, or perceived quality) to enhance clarity and precision.

Strengths and limitations

The primary strength of this study lies in its geographically diverse and interdisciplinary group of Delphi participants, representing 32 countries and numerous fields of research and practice, with participation in both rounds far exceeding the recommended minimum for achieving consensus in Delphi studies [65]. Defining the agreement thresholds and methods a priori is another notable strength, as this approach is not prevalent in studies – as reported in a systematic review [30]. However, some limitations of this study must be acknowledged. Since the study employed a modified Delphi method, it mainly relied on a preliminary list of PAB determinants and their definitions, as derived from the literature; yet this might have introduced some level of bias. However, if such bias did occur, it was likely overcome by allowing the panel members to add missing definitions for subsequent rounds. In addition, certain determinants do not easily align with a single domain category, for example “physical activity provision and ethos in setting”. While the provision aspect reflects the opportunities available within a given setting (i.e., the environmental domain), the ethos component, which captures the values and cultural context shaping these opportunities [66,67,68,69], may conceptually align with the socio-cultural domain. The classification into these domains was carried out primarily to enhance readability and survey feasibility, rather than to suggest rigid conceptual boundaries, and we do not anticipate that this classification approach will affect the establishment of consensus on the definitions. Finally, the list of determinants was mainly based on studies published prior to 2020. Consequently, newer determinants, such as those stemming from government restrictions in light of the COVID-19 pandemic [70], addiction to social networks [71], the global increase in the number and intensity of war conflicts [72] in recent years, and the growing impacts of climate change [73] were not considered in this study.

Implications and future research

When considering the multifaceted PAB phenomenon, adopting the standardised definitions proposed in this study across diverse contexts could greatly contribute to research comparability and generalisability, while enhancing communications within the research community. Future research should prioritise the continuous updating and refinement of these definitions, while incorporating emerging determinants related to global events. Furthermore, researchers should explore the applicability of these definitions across different cultural and socio-economic contexts and settings, to ensure the generation of harmonised, reliable, and comparable data. Such efforts would provide a robust basis for future policies and interventions, while ensuring that the definitions remain broadly relevant and useful for capturing the dynamics of the PAB phenomenon.

Conclusions

Through the modified Delphi approach conducted in this study, we achieved consensus on the definitions of 39 out of 41 determinants. The applied iterative process, which incorporated feedback from a large and diverse group of professionals as well as a linguistic specialist, resulted in the development of robust and standardised definitions. These definitions could significantly contribute to the field of PAB – in both theory and practice. The harmonised terminology could significantly enhance the comparability of research findings, advance practice, and foster more effective communications and understandings within the PAB community of researchers and practitioners.

Data availability

Survey materials and full lists of definitions are available in supplementary materials.

Abbreviations

COST:

Cooperation in Science and Technology

DEDIPAC:

Determinants of Diet and Physical Activity

DE-PASS:

Determinants of Physical Activities in Settings

PAB:

Physical activity behaviour

References

  1. Morales JS, Alberquilla del Río E, Valenzuela PL, Martínez-de-Quel Ó. Physical activity and cognitive performance in early childhood: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Sports Medicine. 2024;54:1835–50.

  2. Bermejo-Cantarero A, Sánchez-López M, Álvarez-Bueno C, Redondo-Tébar A, García-Hermoso A, Martínez-Vizcaino V. Are physical activity interventions effective in improving health-related quality of life in children and adolescents? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Health. 2023;16:877–85.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Paluch AE, Bajpai S, Ballin M, Bassett DR, Buford TW, Carnethon MR, et al. Prospective association of daily steps with cardiovascular disease: A harmonized meta-analysis. Circulation. 2023;147:122–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. De Craemer M, Chastin S, Ahrens W, Bernaards C, Brug J, Buck C, et al. Data on determinants are needed to curb the sedentary epidemic in Europe. Lessons learnt from the DEDIPAC European knowledge hub. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15:1406.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Reilly JJ, Barnes J, Gonzalez S, Huang WY, Manyanga T, Tanaka C, et al. Recent secular trends in child and adolescent physical activity and sedentary behavior internationally: Analyses of Active Healthy Kids Global Alliance Global Matrices 1.0 to 4.0. J Phys Act Health. 2022;19:729–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Guthold R, Stevens GA, Riley LM, Bull FC. Worldwide trends in insufficient physical activity from 2001 to 2016: A pooled analysis of 358 population-based surveys with 1·9 million participants. Lancet Glob Health. 2018;6:e1077–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Guthold R, Stevens GA, Riley LM, Bull FC. Global trends in insufficient physical activity among adolescents: A pooled analysis of 298 population-based surveys with 1·6 million participants. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2020;4:23–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. van Sluijs EMF, Ekelund U, Crochemore-Silva I, Guthold R, Ha A, Lubans D, et al. Physical activity behaviours in adolescence: Current evidence and opportunities for intervention. Lancet. 2021;398:429–42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Lakerveld J, van der Ploeg HP, Kroeze W, Ahrens W, Allais O, Andersen LF, et al. Towards the integration and development of a cross-European research network and infrastructure: The DEterminants of DIet and Physical ACtivity (DEDIPAC) knowledge hub. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014;11:143.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Bauman AE, Reis RS, Sallis JF, Wells JC, Loos RJ, Martin BW. Correlates of physical activity: why are some people physically active and others not? Lancet. 2012;380:258–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Khudair M, Marcuzzi A, Ng K, Tempest GD, Bartoš F, Peric R, et al. DE-PASS Best Evidence Statement (BESt): Modifiable determinants of physical activity and sedentary behaviour in children and adolescents aged 5–19 years-a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2022;12: e059202.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Aleksovska K, Puggina A, Giraldi L, Buck C, Burns C, Cardon G, et al. Biological determinants of physical activity across the life course: A “determinants of diet and physical activity” (DEDIPAC) umbrella systematic literature review. Sports Med Open. 2019;5:2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Carlin A, Perchoux C, Puggina A, Aleksovska K, Buck C, Burns C, et al. A life course examination of the physical environmental determinants of physical activity behaviour: A “Determinants of Diet and Physical Activity” (DEDIPAC) umbrella systematic literature review. PLoS ONE. 2017;12: e0182083.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Cortis C, Puggina A, Pesce C, Aleksovska K, Buck C, Burns C, et al. Psychological determinants of physical activity across the life course: A “DEterminants of DIet and Physical ACtivity” (DEDIPAC) umbrella systematic literature review. PLoS ONE. 2017;12: e0182709.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Condello G, Puggina A, Aleksovska K, Buck C, Burns C, Cardon G, et al. Behavioral determinants of physical activity across the life course: A “DEterminants of DIet and Physical ACtivity” (DEDIPAC) umbrella systematic literature review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14:58.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Jaeschke L, Steinbrecher A, Luzak A, Puggina A, Aleksovska K, Buck C, et al. Socio-cultural determinants of physical activity across the life course: A “Determinants of Diet and Physical Activity” (DEDIPAC) umbrella systematic literature review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14:173.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Puggina A, Aleksovska K, Buck C, Burns C, Cardon G, Carlin A, et al. Policy determinants of physical activity across the life course: A “DEDIPAC” umbrella systematic literature review. Eur J Public Health. 2018;28:105–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. O’Donoghue G, Kennedy A, Puggina A, Aleksovska K, Buck C, Burns C, et al. Socio-economic determinants of physical activity across the life course: A “DEterminants of DIet and Physical ACtivity” (DEDIPAC) umbrella literature review. PLoS ONE. 2018;13: e0190737.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Brug J, van der Ploeg HP, Loyen A, Ahrens W, Allais O, Andersen LF, et al. Determinants of diet and physical activity (DEDIPAC): A summary of findings. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14:150.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Curtner-Smith ME. Mechanisms by which family processes contribute to school-age boys’ bullying. Child Study J. 2000;30:169.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Tibbs T, Haire-Joshu D, Schechtman KB, Brownson RC, Nanney MS, Houston C, et al. The relationship between parental modeling, eating patterns, and dietary intake among African-American parents. J Am Diet Assoc. 2001;101:535–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Trost SG, Loprinzi PD. Parental influences on physical activity behavior in children and adolescents: A brief review. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2011;5:171–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Tremblay MS, Gray C, Babcock S, Barnes J, Bradstreet CC, Carr D, et al. Position statement on active outdoor play. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015;12:6475–505.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Niederberger M, Spranger J. Delphi technique in health sciences: A map. Front Public Health. 2020;8:457.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Cruz J, Netz Y, Dygryn J, Brazo-Sayavera J, Gebremariam M, Ribeiro J, et al. Consensus statement on consistent terminology regarding determinants of physical activity behaviours. 2023. Available from: https://osf.io/wtcnu/. Cited 2023 Dec 9.

  26. Sallis JF, Prochaska JJ, Taylor WC. A review of correlates of physical activity of children and adolescents. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32:963–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Craggs C, Corder K, Van Sluijs EMF, Griffin SJ. Determinants of change in physical activity in children and adolescents: A systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40:645–58.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. De Vet E, de Ridder DTD, de Wit JBF. Environmental correlates of physical activity and dietary behaviours among young people: A systematic review of reviews. Obes Rev. 2011;12:e130–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kolovelonis A, Syrmpas I, Marcuzzi A, Khudair M, Ng K, Tempest GD, et al. DE-PASS best evidence statement (BESt): determinants of adolescents’ device-based physical activity and sedentary behaviour in settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2024;24:1706.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Diamond IR, Grant RC, Feldman BM, Pencharz PB, Ling SC, Moore AM, et al. Defining consensus: A systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:401–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. National Center for Biotechnology Information. Life change events . MeSH database. National Library of Medicine. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/68008016. Cited 2022 Oct 5.

  32. Tremblay MS, Aubert S, Barnes JD, Saunders TJ, Carson V, Latimer-Cheung AE, et al. Sedentary Behavior Research Network (SBRN) - Terminology consensus project process and outcome. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14:1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. American Psychological Association. Self-efficacy . APA Dictionary of Psychology. Available from: https://dictionary.apa.org/self-efficacy.Cited 2022 Oct 2.

  34. American Psychological Association. Sleep . APA Dictionary of Psychology. Available from: https://dictionary.apa.org/sleep.Cited 2022 Oct 2.

  35. American Psychological Association. Chronological age . APA Dictionary of Psychology. Available from: https://dictionary.apa.org/chronological-age

  36. Di Katie Sebastiano M. Body fat. In: Gellman Marc D. and Turner JR, editor. Encyclopedia of Behavioral Medicine . New York, NY: Springer New York; 2013. p. 243–5. Available from: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1007/978-1-4419-1005-9_1096

  37. American Psychological Association. Educational attainment level (1) . APA Dictionary of Psychology. Available from: https://dictionary.apa.org/educational-attainment-level. Cited 2022 Oct 2.

  38. Barkan SE. Sociology: Understanding and changing the social world. Boston, MA: Flat World Knowledge; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Porta M, Last JM. Health status. A Dictionary of Public Health . 2nd ed. Oxford University Press; 2018. Available from: https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/https://doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780191844386.001.0001/acref-9780191844386-e-1950?rskey=cveUyY&result=1. Cited 2022 Oct 1.

  40. Zipes DP. Braunwald’s Heart Disease: A Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine. 11th ed. Libby P, Bonow RO, Mann DL, Tomaselli GF, editors. Philadelphia: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2018.

  41. Lee HY, Hahm M Il, Park EC. Differential association of socio-economic status with gender- and age-defined suicidal ideation among adult and elderly individuals in South Korea. Psychiatry Res. 2013;210:323–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Caspersen C, Powell K, Gregory C. Physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness: Definitions and distinctions for health-related research. Public Health Rep. 1985;100:126–31.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Council of Europe (Gender Equality Commission). Gender equality glossary . 2016. Available from: https://edoc.coe.int/en/gender-equality/6947-gender-equality-glossary.html

  44. American Psychological Association. Socioeconomic status (SES) . APA Dictionary of Psychology. Available from: https://dictionary.apa.org/socioeconomic-statusCited 2022 Oct 1.

  45. American Psychological Association. Stress . APA Dictionary of Psychology. Available from: https://dictionary.apa.org/stress . Cited 2022 Oct 2.

  46. Kruk M, Zarychta K, Horodyska K, Boberska M, Scholz U, Radtke T, et al. From enjoyment to physical activity or from physical activity to enjoyment? Longitudinal associations in parent–child dyads. Psychol Health. 2018;33:1269–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. American Psychological Association. Fatigue . APA Dictionary of Psychology. Available from: https://dictionary.apa.org/fatigue.Cited 2022 Oct 2.

  48. American Psychological Association. Motivation . APA Dictionary of Psychology.  Available from: https://dictionary.apa.org/motivation. Cited 2022 Oct 2.

  49. American Psychological Association. Perceived behavioral control . APA Dictionary of Psychology.  Available from: https://dictionary.apa.org/perceived-behavioral-control. Cited 2022 Oct 2.

  50. American Psychological Association. Perceived competence . APA Dictionary of Psychology. Available from: https://dictionary.apa.org/perceived-competence. Cited 2022 Oct 2.

  51. American Psychological Association. Self-efficacy . APA Dictionary of Psychology. Available from: https://dictionary.apa.org/self-efficacy. Cited 2024 Jul 15.

  52. National Center for Biotechnology Information. Self-control . MeSH database. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/2009825. Cited 2022 Oct 4.

  53. French S, Giles-Corti B, I’Anson K. 2010 UWA commuting survey, volume 1: Executive Summary. Perth; 2010.

  54. Wales M, Mårtensson F, Jansson M. “You can be outside a lot”: Independent mobility and agency among children in a suburban community in Sweden. Child Geogr. 2021;19:184–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. American Psychological Association. Sleep . APA Dictionary of Psychology. Available from: https://dictionary.apa.org/sleep. Cted 2024 Jul 15.

  56. National Center for Biotechnology Information. Neighborhood characteristics. MeSH database.

  57. Doble SE, Santha JC. Occupational well-being: Rethinking occupational therapy outcomes. Can J Occup Ther. 2008;75:184–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Taguchi N, Xiao F, Li S. Effects of Intercultural Competence and Social Contact on Speech Act Production in a Chinese Study Abroad Context. Modern Language Journal. 2016;100:775–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Condello G, Ling FCM, Bianco A, Chastin S, Cardon G, Ciarapica D, et al. Using concept mapping in the development of the EU-PAD framework (EUropean-Physical Activity Determinants across the life course): A DEDIPAC-study. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Wilson GC, Mavros Y, Tajouri L, Singh MF. The role of genetic profile in functional performance adaptations to exercise training or physical activity: A systematic review of the literature. J Aging Phys Act. 2019;27:594–616.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Maher BS. Polygenic Scores in Epidemiology: Risk Prediction, Etiology, and Clinical Utility. Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2015;2:239–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Oakley J, Peters RL, Wake M, Grobler AC, Kerr JA, Lycett K, et al. Backyard benefits? A cross-sectional study of yard size and greenness and children’s physical activity and outdoor play. BMC Public Health. 2021;21:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Armstrong GP, Maitland C, Lester L, Trost SG, Trapp G, Boruff B, et al. Associations between the home yard and preschoolers’ outdoor play and physical activity. Public Health Res Pract. 2019;29: e2911907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Jones A, Hillsdon M, Coombes E. Greenspace access, use, and physical activity: Understanding the effects of area deprivation. Prev Med. 2009;49:500–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Nasa P, Jain R, Juneja D. Delphi methodology in healthcare research: How to decide its appropriateness. World J Methodol. 2021;11:116.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Jenkinson KA, Benson AC. Barriers to providing physical education and physical activity in Victorian state secondary schools. Aust J Teach Educ. 2010;35:1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Ip P, Ho FKW, Louie LHT, Chung TWH, Cheung YF, Lee SL, et al. Childhood Obesity and Physical Activity-Friendly School Environments. J Pediatr. 2017;191:110–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Boyle SE, Jones GL, Walters SJ. Physical activity among adolescents and barriers to delivering physical education in Cornwall and Lancashire, UK: A qualitative study of heads of PE and heads of schools. BMC Public Health. 2008;8:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Woods CB, Tannehill D, Quinlan A, Moyna N, Walsh J. The Children’s Sport Participation and Physical Activity Study (CSPPA) Research Report No1. School of Health and Human Performance . Dublin City University and The Irish Sports Council. Dublin; 2010. Available from: https://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/CCLSP_Study_Report1.pdf

  70. Toktaş N, Köse E, Lapa TY, Kaas ET, Serdar Yücel A, Derman S. Global trends and future prospects of COVID-19 and physical activity: Bibliometric analysis. Medicine (United States). 2023;102:e35316.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Tremblay MS, Kuzik N, Biddle SJH, Carson V, Chinapaw MJM, Dumuid D, et al. Digital Screen Media Use, Movement Behaviors, and Child Health. In: Christakis DA, Hale L, editors. Handbook of Children and Screens: Digital Media, Development, and Well-Being from Birth Through Adolescence . Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland; 2025. p. 63–72. Available from: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1007/978-3-031-69362-5_10

  72. Vancini RL, Andrade MS, Knechtle B, Weiss K, de Lira CA. Could war among nations decrease physical activity levels? J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2024;64:211–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Zisis E, Hakimi S, Lee EY. Climate change, 24-hour movement behaviors, and health: a mini umbrella review. Glob Health Res Policy. 2021;6:15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the significant contribution to this work of experts within Work Group 3 of the DE-PASS project. The authors would also like to thank Beverley Yohanan for her professional English language editing of this article.

Funding

This work was funded by the Virtual Mobilities and Short Time Scientific Missions grants of COST Action CA19101, titled 'Determinants of Physical Activities in Settings' (DE-PASS). JD was supported by the project “Research of Excellence on Digital Technologies and Wellbeing CZ.02.01.01/00/22_008/0004583” which is co-financed by Europe Union. JC acknowledges the support of the Center for Innovative Care and Health Technology (ciTechCare), funded by Portuguese national funds provided by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (UIDB/05704/2020). JCR acknowledges the support of the Research Center in Physical Activity, Health and Leisure (UID/DTP/00617/2020), and Laboratory for Integrative and Translational Research in Population Health (LA/P/0064/2020), funded by Portuguese national funds provided by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia. Funding organizations had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Physical Culture, Palacký University Olomouc, třída Míru 117, Olomouc, 779 00, Olomouc, Czech Republic

    Jan Dygrýn

  2. Department of Sports and Computer Science, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Seville, Spain

    Javier Brazo-Sayavera

  3. Center for Innovative Care and Health Technology (ciTechCare), School of Health Sciences of the Polytechnic University of Leiria, Leiria, Portugal

    Joana Cruz

  4. Department of Community Medicine and Global Health, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Mekdes Kebede Gebremariam

  5. Sustainable Health Unit, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Mekdes Kebede Gebremariam

  6. Research Centre in Physical Activity, Health and Leisure, Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

    José Carlos Ribeiro

  7. Laboratory for Integrative and Translational Research in Population Health, Porto, Portugal

    José Carlos Ribeiro

  8. Department of Movement, Human and Health Sciences, University of Rome Foro Italico, Rome, Italy

    Laura Capranica

  9. Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences and Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

    Ciaran MacDonncha

  10. Levinsky-Wingate Academic College, Wingate Campus, Netanya, Israel

    Yael Netz

  11. Department of Health Promotion and Rehabilitation, Lithuanian Sports University, Kaunas, Lithuania

    Yael Netz

Authors
  1. Jan Dygrýn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Javier Brazo-Sayavera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joana Cruz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mekdes Kebede Gebremariam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. José Carlos Ribeiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Laura Capranica
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ciaran MacDonncha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yael Netz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JD, JB-S, JC, CM and YN conceptualized and designed the study and prepared the final dataset. JB-S and JC performed statistical analysis and provided editing assistance for tables and content. JD, JB-S, JC, JCR, MKG, LC and YN contributed to the interpretation of data and wrote the manuscript. All authors critically reviewed the manuscript and approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Dygrýn.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This work was conducted by Work Group 3 of the Determinants of Physical Activity in Settings (DE-PASS) COST Action. All experts who contributed to the consensus process in this study are members of this work group in this COST Action. These experts were provided with detailed information about the study in both steps. Informed participant consent was implied by participation in the consensus process.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dygrýn, J., Brazo-Sayavera, J., Cruz, J. et al. Definitions of determinants of physical activity behaviour: process and outcome of consensus from the DE-PASS expert group. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 22, 34 (2025). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12966-025-01728-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12966-025-01728-5

Keywords

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity

ISSN: 1479-5868

Contact us