Health Behavior & Policy Review. 2014;1(3):209-217 209 T he 2010 National Physical Activity Plan (NPAP) includes a wide-ranging set of poli- cies, programs, and initiatives directed at increasing physical activity across the United States (US). 1 It is the first comprehensive, national plan- ning tool devoted entirely to supporting physical activity in the US. e NPAP brings together 8 dis- ciplines in the pursuit of a multi-sector approach to promoting physical activity: public health; health care; education; mass media; business and indus- try; volunteer and non-profit organizations; parks, recreation, fitness, and sports; and transportation, land use, and community design. 2 A companion guide for implementing the NPAP, entitled Make the Move, was developed by the Na- tional Coalition for Promoting Physical Activity. 3 It includes resources, anecdotal success narratives, and sets short-term goals related to championing physical activity through the NPAP. e document provides physical activity practitioners with measurable out- comes and objectives for change as they work through the NPAP by showcasing successful examples of im- plementation strategies from around the US. Currently, Texas is one of only a few states to de- velop a state-level plan devoted entirely to physical activity planning and promotion. Most other states include physical activity as part of a chronic dis- ease or obesity plan. 4 e physical activity plan in Texas is in addition to its state-level obesity plan. 5,6 Active Texas 2020 is the product of collaboration among the Governor’s Council on Physical Fitness, the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, the Michael and Susan Dell Center for Advancement of Healthy Living, the University of Texas at Austin, and the Austin Mayor’s Fitness Council. Like the NPAP, it is a multi-sector plan designed to incorporate stakeholders from a diverse group of community sectors. 7-15 Jeanette Gustat, Clinical Associate Professor of Epidemiology and Isobel Healy, Program Manager, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, New Orleans, LA; Kelly R. Evenson, Research Professor, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC; Daniel B. Bornstein, Assistant Professor, Department of Health, Exercise and Sport Science, e Citadel, Charleston, SC; Amy A. Eyler, Assistant Professor, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO. Correspondence Dr Gustat; gustat@tulane.edu Perspectives on the National Physical Activity Plan by Texas Practitioners Jeanette Gustat, PhD, MPH Isobel Healy, MPH Kelly R. Evenson, PhD, MS Daniel B. Bornstein, PhD Amy A. Eyler, PhD, CHES Objectives: This case study examined issues around the use of the 2010 National Physical Ac- tivity Plan (NPAP) in Texas. Methods: In 2012, key informant interviews were conducted with 17 respondents promoting physical activity in Texas. Interviews were digitally recorded, tran- scribed, and coded for themes through an iterative process. Results: Over half the respondents were aware of the NPAP. The NPAP was perceived to be compatible, a source of guidance, and evidence-based. Challenges included issues with localizing the plan and it being understood and used outside the public health sector. Conclusions: The NPAP provides guidance to increase physical activity. Efforts should focus on dissemination outside public health and better demon- strate a connection to local efforts in Texas. Key words: intervention dissemination, physical activity, policy, program implementation, qualitative research Health Behavior & Policy Review. 2014;1(3):209-217 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14485/HBPR.1.3.5