How to select interventions for promoting physical activity in schools? Combining preferences of stakeholders and scientists.
Costs
Efficacy
Feasibility
Implementation
Longevity
Physical activity intervention
Reach
Journal
The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity
ISSN: 1479-5868
Titre abrégé: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101217089
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 04 2023
25 04 2023
Historique:
received:
24
10
2022
accepted:
12
04
2023
medline:
27
4
2023
pubmed:
26
4
2023
entrez:
25
4
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The failure to scale-up and implement physical activity (PA) interventions in real world contexts, which were previously successful under controlled conditions, may be attributed to the different criteria of stakeholders and scientists in the selection process of available interventions. Therefore, the aim of our study was to investigate and compare the criteria applied by local stakeholders and scientists for selecting amongst suitable school-based PA interventions for implementation. We conducted a three-round repeated survey Delphi study with local stakeholders (n = 7; Bremen, Germany) and international scientific PA experts (n = 6). Independently for both panels, two rounds were utilized to develop a list of criteria and the definitions of criteria, followed by a prioritization of the criteria in the third round. For each panel, a narrative analysis was used to rank-order unique criteria, list the number of scorers for the unique criteria and synthesize criteria into overarching categories. The stakeholders developed a list of 53 unique criteria, synthesized into 11 categories with top-ranked criteria being 'free of costs', 'longevity' and 'integration into everyday school life'. The scientists listed 35 unique criteria, synthesized into 7 categories with the top-ranked criteria being 'efficacy', 'potential for reach' and 'feasibility'. The top ranked unique criteria in the stakeholder panel were distributed over many categories, whereas four out of the top six criteria in the scientist panel were related to 'evidence'. Although stakeholders and scientists identified similar criteria, major differences were disclosed in the prioritization of the criteria. We recommend an early collaboration of stakeholders and scientists in the design, implementation, and evaluation of PA interventions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The failure to scale-up and implement physical activity (PA) interventions in real world contexts, which were previously successful under controlled conditions, may be attributed to the different criteria of stakeholders and scientists in the selection process of available interventions. Therefore, the aim of our study was to investigate and compare the criteria applied by local stakeholders and scientists for selecting amongst suitable school-based PA interventions for implementation.
METHODS
We conducted a three-round repeated survey Delphi study with local stakeholders (n = 7; Bremen, Germany) and international scientific PA experts (n = 6). Independently for both panels, two rounds were utilized to develop a list of criteria and the definitions of criteria, followed by a prioritization of the criteria in the third round. For each panel, a narrative analysis was used to rank-order unique criteria, list the number of scorers for the unique criteria and synthesize criteria into overarching categories.
RESULTS
The stakeholders developed a list of 53 unique criteria, synthesized into 11 categories with top-ranked criteria being 'free of costs', 'longevity' and 'integration into everyday school life'. The scientists listed 35 unique criteria, synthesized into 7 categories with the top-ranked criteria being 'efficacy', 'potential for reach' and 'feasibility'. The top ranked unique criteria in the stakeholder panel were distributed over many categories, whereas four out of the top six criteria in the scientist panel were related to 'evidence'.
CONCLUSIONS
Although stakeholders and scientists identified similar criteria, major differences were disclosed in the prioritization of the criteria. We recommend an early collaboration of stakeholders and scientists in the design, implementation, and evaluation of PA interventions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37098620
doi: 10.1186/s12966-023-01452-y
pii: 10.1186/s12966-023-01452-y
pmc: PMC10127415
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
48Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2016 Aug 22;13:94
pubmed: 27549382
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jul 18;18(14):
pubmed: 34300080
Lancet. 2012 Jul 21;380(9838):219-29
pubmed: 22818936
Obes Rev. 2021 Jul;22(7):e13184
pubmed: 33527738
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2019 Nov 7;16(1):102
pubmed: 31699095
Prev Med. 2022 Feb;155:106920
pubmed: 34921831
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020 Feb 7;17(1):13
pubmed: 32028968
BMJ. 2012 Sep 27;345:e5888
pubmed: 23044984
J Phys Act Health. 2021 May 14;18(6):625-630
pubmed: 33984836
BMJ Open. 2020 Oct 6;10(10):e037848
pubmed: 33028552
Obes Rev. 2017 Apr;18(4):476-490
pubmed: 28187241
J Phys Act Health. 2015 Oct;12(10):1436-46
pubmed: 25599111
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020 Feb 11;17(1):19
pubmed: 32046735
Eur J Public Health. 2021 Dec 1;31(6):1183-1189
pubmed: 34355754
BMJ. 2007 Oct 6;335(7622):703
pubmed: 17884863
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2019 Dec 2;16(1):120
pubmed: 31791341
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010 May 11;7:40
pubmed: 20459784
Prev Med. 2015 Mar;72:95-115
pubmed: 25575800
BMJ. 2014 Mar 07;348:g1687
pubmed: 24609605
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2018 Jun 8;15(1):51
pubmed: 29884236
Obes Facts. 2009;2(3):187-95
pubmed: 20054224
Obes Rev. 2019 Jun;20(6):859-870
pubmed: 30628172
Front Public Health. 2019 Mar 19;7:55
pubmed: 30941342
Br J Sports Med. 2020 Jul;54(14):826-838
pubmed: 31619381
Int J Clin Pharm. 2016 Jun;38(3):655-62
pubmed: 26846316
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021 Jan 22;18(1):16
pubmed: 33482837