Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33722274›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2021

Co-creating physical activity interventions: a mixed methods evaluation approach.

Johanna Popp, Eva Grüne, Johannes Carl, Jana Semrau, Klaus Pfeifer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Johanna PoppDepartment of Sport Science and Sport, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Gebbertstraße 123b, 91058, Erlangen, Germany. johanna.m.popp@fau.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3459-804X
Eva GrüneDepartment of Sport Science and Sport, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Gebbertstraße 123b, 91058, Erlangen, Germany.
Johannes CarlDepartment of Sport Science and Sport, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Gebbertstraße 123b, 91058, Erlangen, Germany.
Jana SemrauDepartment of Sport Science and Sport, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Gebbertstraße 123b, 91058, Erlangen, Germany.
Klaus PfeiferDepartment of Sport Science and Sport, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Gebbertstraße 123b, 91058, Erlangen, Germany.

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 01EL1821A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCo-creation strategies, such as cooperative planning, are promising as a means to ensure that physical activity interventions address real-world problems and are tailored to the target group. This has already been validated in diverse settings. However, questions targeting the transferability of cooperative planning to new settings and the key factors influencing its success or failure remain unclear. At the same time, co-creation processes are complex, and evaluation can be challenging. Following calls for detailed reporting, this paper describes the programme activities, the underlying logic, and methodological design of a study that aims to evaluate the transfer of cooperative planning to new settings and to explore the associated key determinants.

methodsCooperative planning was utilized as a strategy to target physical activity promotion in three real-world German settings in the nursing care and automotive mechatronics sectors. This involved researchers working alongside stakeholders from practice and policy to conjointly develop new interventions to promote physical activity in physically demanding jobs. A pragmatic approach is used to evaluate both the transferability and key determinants of this strategy. We developed a logic model for this co-creation process that describes the underlying assumptions and guides the evaluation. The evaluation outcomes of this study include planning meetings, newly developed interventions, and the determinants that are likely to affect cooperative planning. Quantitative and qualitative data will be collected using questionnaires, documents, and interviews. The quantitative data will be analysed descriptively, while the qualitative data will mainly be analysed using qualitative content analysis, split by settings. Subsequently, data triangulation will be used to integrate the quantitative and qualitative findings, which will then be compared across all three settings. DISCUSSION: The study findings will contribute to a better understanding of co-creation strategies, their transferability, and key determinants. The practical implications can include a checklist for assessing key determinants and a guideline for transferring cooperative planning into new settings to benefit more people. Ultimately, this study will help to advance co-creation strategies and may be relevant for researchers, practitioners, and policy-makers targeting physical activity promotion in various contexts.

trial registrationOpen Science Framework: https://osf.io/r6xnt/ (retrospectively registered).

Indexed as

ExerciseResearch DesignHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesAutomotive mechatronicsCooperative planningCoproductionHealth promotionLogic modelNursing careParticipationPragmatic evaluationSchoolWorkplace

Identifiers

PMID33722274
PMCPMC7958094

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.