Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background Physical activity (PA) benefits health, yet systematic assessment of PA among Chinese adults is limited. This study presents the first Shanghai report card on PA for adults, providing baseline evidence for policy development and international comparison. Methods Data were derived from the 2025 National Fitness Activity Status Survey of 2,870 Shanghai residents (≥ 19 years), using stratified multi-stage probability sampling covering all 16 districts. Following the 2025 ParticipACTION framework, 17 indicators across four categories were graded. Results The grades of Shanghai 2025 report card were Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity (MVPA, D+), Total Daily Steps (C-), Muscle-Strengthening Activities (F), Balance Activities (B-), Active Transportation (INC), Sport Participation (C-), Sleep (B-), Stationary Time (A-), Recreational Screen Time (C-), Perceived Capability (A), Perceived Opportunity (C-), Motivation (INC), Facilities and Infrastructure (B+), Programming (INC), Policies and Leadership (INC), Social Environment (INC), and Government (A-). Conclusion Generally, lower grades were assigned to behavior-related indicators (e.g., MVPA, muscle-strengthening activities, recreational screen time), whereas higher grades were observed for structural indicators related to infrastructure, perceived capability, and government strategies. These findings suggest that Shanghai has established robust policy supports and environmental assets, yet the translation of these investments into actual behavioral change among adults remains inadequate. Future efforts should prioritize closing the policy–practice gap through targeted interventions, expanding accessible PA opportunities, and strengthening data infrastructure, with particular attention to females. This Report Card provides a baseline for ongoing monitoring and cross‑national comparison, and will guide future policy refinement and health promotion strategies in Shanghai. Clinical trial number : not applicable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: