Standards Meeting · EREPS 2 EREPS 3 EREPS 4 EREPS 5 ... More accessible standards e.g. level 3? Is...

5th International Standards Meeting

14-15 October 2014 Amsterdam

#ISM5

More  credibility  and  more  development  in  fitness  creden4als  at  European  voca4onal  level  

Christoffer  Andersen,  Paolo  Casero=,  László  Zopcsák  

Europe  Ac4ve  Standard  Council  

Which stakeholder do you want to represent?

•  Members/participants/patients

•  Health care providers/health care specialists

•  Fitness industry

a. Credible for whom? b. credible for what? c. What are we good at/not good at? Do we truly know our DNA?

1. Profiling credibility for the health and fitness sector

Credibility

•  Do standards incorporate health care professionals/providers´ “vision”?

•  Do we need to create a stronger “bridge” with “health care providers/professionals

2.  Need for “a more integrated approach”?

Members/end-users/patients

GPs Ex.

specialists

Health professionals

e.g. physiotherapists

”Parallel approach”

Volunteers

Nutritionists Virtual channels e.g. youtube

Customer/participant/patient

”Integrated approach”

Gps

Nutritionists

Volunteers Health profess.

Ex profess.

•  Integrated versus a parallel approach?

•  What are the barriers and what are the strengths?

2.  Need for “a more integrated approach”?

•  Genuine interest for the end-user or ”need of expansion” of the

industry?

•  How do we facilitate the cross-profession communications and maintain “our integrity” and “field of action”?

•  E.g. primary versus secondary prevention in the health care sector (e.g. physiotherapists: acute phase – ex professional “chronic/permanent phase”. DK - Odense example

3.  Conflicting professions: how to get beyond competitive interests?

4.  Exercise is Medicine:

•  Expansion of our “body image” because of desperate need of

recognition?

•  Medicalization of the exercise. Why did we get there?

•  Exercise is fun, exercise connects, exercise makes me feel good.

•  Does Exercise need to be “medically approved”???

•  How can we create a “true job opportunity” for the different

education levels?

•  Is there a need for higher level of education in the fitness sector?

•  How can we integrate vocational into academic education and create a job profile which has an additional “benefit” (e.g. career, remuneration)

•  Vocational training: combine the knowledge: are the standards “too” academic and do not include the experience of the fitness and health care industry? E.g. retention – attrition rate

5.  Integration of academic education with vocational education

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Fitn

ess

Ass

ista

nt

Aq

ua

Fitn

ess

Inst

ruct

or

Fitn

ess

Inst

ruct

or

Gro

up

Fit

nes

s In

stru

ctor

Per

son

al T

rain

er

Pila

tes

Teac

her

Yog

a te

ach

er

You

th F

itn

ess

inst

ruct

or

Act

ive

Ag

ein

g

Exer

cise

for

Hea

lth

Sp

ecia

list

Pre

Dia

bet

es S

pec

ialis

t

Wei

gh

t M

anag

emen

t S

pec

ialis

t

CP

D T

rain

ing

EREPS 2 EREPS 3 EREPS 4 EREPS 5

NUMBER OF TRAINING PROVIDERS

Main points:

6.  More accessible standards e.g. level 3?

Is the bar set too high to be accessible? Are the training providers not able to put together the more advanced courses? Are there fitness professionals willing to pay? Is there a real need from the market at the moment?

7.  Standards updating

•  Regular standards updating following the new evidence/trends/market

•  Renewal of the accreditation certificate through a ”Extra education units (e.g. summer school)

•  Does it increase credibility?

6.  Standards for “active life-style”?

Is there a need for more ecological standards which take into account people´ life-style? Indoor versus Active life-style customers service not only technical skills (e.g. training theory)