TY - JOUR
T1 - How to select interventions for promoting physical activity in schools? Combining preferences of stakeholders and scientists
AU - Brandes, Mirko
AU - Brandes, Berit
AU - Sell, Louisa
AU - Sacheck, Jennifer M.
AU - Chinapaw, Mai
AU - Lubans, David R.
AU - Woll, Alexander
AU - Schipperijn, Jasper
AU - Jago, Russell
AU - Busse, Heide
N1 - Funding Information:
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This work was supported by the Federal Ministry of Health, Germany, grant number 1504/54401. The funder was not involved in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript.
Funding Information:
We would like to express our sincere thanks to the stakeholders who participated in and contributed to the success of this study: • Jörg Steinbach, Prevention Representative, Professional Association of Paediatricians and Adolescents Bremen, Bremen, Germany • Inga Dornbusch, vice-headmaster of the primary school Andernacher Straße, Bremen, Germany • Holger Dohrmann, headmaster of the primary school Stichnathstraße, Bremen, Germany • Linus Edwards, vice-director of the Bremen State Sports Association, Bremen, Germany • Dirk Gansefort, Bremen Health Association, Bremen, Germany • Dietmar Ludwig, State Institute for Schools, Bremen, Germany • Ludwig Voss, Kristof Fiebig, Sport-Club ‘Werder’ e.V., Bremen, Germany Additionally, we would like to express our sincere thanks to the Senatorial Authority for Children and Education, Bremen, Germany, which participated and contributed to the success of this study. We further like to express our thanks to Annika Weynand who helped to assemble the criterion lists at each round of the process.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023, The Author(s).
PY - 2023/12/1
Y1 - 2023/12/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Costs
KW - Efficacy
KW - Feasibility
KW - Implementation
KW - Longevity
KW - Physical activity intervention
KW - Reach
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85153827039&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s12966-023-01452-y
DO - 10.1186/s12966-023-01452-y
M3 - Article
C2 - 37098620
SN - 1479-5868
VL - 20
JO - International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
JF - International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
IS - 1
M1 - 48
ER -