Author(s): ZIDAN, H., HASSAN, M., Institution: FACULTY OF SPORTS SCIENCES, CAPITAL UNIVERSITY., Country: EGYPT, Abstract-ID: 1035

INTRODUCTION:
The World Health Organization (WHO) advocates for the integration of physical activity as a fundamental preventive intervention within healthcare. However, significant disparities exist among nations regarding adherence to these recommendations for combating non-communicable diseases (NCDs). The absence of a unified framework defining the professional role of sports science graduates has created a critical disconnect between academic recognition and effective functional empowerment within healthcare systems.
METHODS:
A comparative document analysis of physical activity policies across WHO member states was conducted. An initial sample of 46 countries was identified, representing all nations with declared operational policies for promoting physical activity as reported by the Global Observatory of Physical Activity (GoPA 2022). However, 12 countries were excluded due to the lack of reliable data on key socioeconomic indicators-specifically, urbanization, health expenditure (% of GDP), and Gini Coefficient (for economic inequality). These indicators were deemed essential for understanding the institutional context within which policies for integrating sports science professionals operate. Consequently, the final analysis was restricted to 34 countries for which data were available from authoritative primary sources-the World Bank and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
A deductive thematic analysis was employed to classify the institutional patterns of sports science professional`s integration based on three dimensions: (1) scope of practice (primary vs. secondary care), (2) form of legal recognition (absence, institutional, or constitutional/statutory), and (3) funding mechanisms (none, restricted, or direct). The demographic and economic background of each country were incorporated as part of the context for qualitative interpretation.
RESULTS:
Thematic analysis identified four distinct models: (1) Functional Empowerment without Legal Recognition (e.g., Sweden): integration into primary care as behavioral deliverers via evidence-based programs (a.k.a, FaR), funded regionally, without formal licensure; (2) Full Statutory Recognition with Direct Funding: classification as allied health professionals with insurance-covered services; (3) Academic Recognition Only: advanced academic training but no operational role or public funding; and (4) Institutional Neglect; absence of policy frameworks, recognition, or funding.
CONCLUSION:
These patterns demonstrate that effective integration is not contingent on legal status alone, but on a defined functional role within primary care, supported by targeted funding and scientific legitimacy.
Findings indicate that policymakers should prioritize operational empowerment over symbolic recognition to strengthen health systems` capacity for NCD prevention through functional Sports Science workforce integration. However, findings are limited by the cross-sectional design and reliance on secondary data.