Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26607789›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2015

Exploring participant appreciation of group-based principles for action in community-based physical activity programs for socially vulnerable groups in the Netherlands.

Marion Herens, Annemarie Wagemakers, Lenneke Vaandrager, Maria Koelen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2015. 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
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marion HerensHealth and Society, Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, PO Box 8130, 6700 EW, Wageningen, The Netherlands. marion.herens@wur.nl.
Annemarie WagemakersHealth and Society, Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, PO Box 8130, 6700 EW, Wageningen, The Netherlands. annemarie.wagemakers@wur.nl.
Lenneke VaandragerHealth and Society, Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, PO Box 8130, 6700 EW, Wageningen, The Netherlands. lenneke.vaandrager@wur.nl.
Maria KoelenHealth and Society, Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, PO Box 8130, 6700 EW, Wageningen, The Netherlands. maria.koelen@wur.nl.
Wageningen University & Research · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPhysical inactivity is a core risk factor for non-communicable diseases. In the Netherlands, socially vulnerable groups are relatively less active than groups with higher socio-economic status. Community-based health-enhancing physical activity (CBHEPA) programs aim to empower socially vulnerable groups by improving participants' health and wellbeing through physical activity. CBHEPA programs often revolve around group-based principles for action, such as active participation, enjoyment, and fostering group processes. As such principles are rarely made explicit, our study aims to identify which of the group-based principles for action are considered important by participants.

methodsRespondents (n = 76) from ten focus groups scored their individual appreciation of group-based principles for action - active participation, enjoyment, and fostering group processes - on a three-point, statement-based scale. Opinions were further discussed in the focus group. Focus group discussions were transcribed and analysed by a team of investigators. The coding procedures, identifying elements appreciated in group-based principles for action, were thematic and data driven.

resultsStatements about participatory programming generated much less consensus in appreciation among respondents than statements about enjoyment and fostering group processes. To some extent, group members participated in the development of program content. Participation in group formation or community initiatives was less frequently perceived as something within group members' control. Enjoyment, expressed as physical and emotional experiences, was found to be an individual driver of group exercise. Fostering group processes, expressed as social support, was found to contribute to enjoyment and learning achievements. Responsive leadership, ensuring responsive guidance, by an enthusiastic exercise trainer acting as a role model, were identified as additional necessary principles for action.

conclusionsGroup-based principles for action in CBHEPA programs are not clearly demarcated. Fostering group processes is an overarching principle, conditional for the spin-off in terms of enjoyment and active participation. This, in turn, leads to a sense of ownership among participants, who take up responsibility for the exercise group as well as their individual activity behaviour. CBHEPA programs thrive on participants having fun together and exercise trainers' leadership skills. A professional, competent, responsive exercise trainer plays a key role in the organisation and maintenance of CBHEPA programs.

Indexed as

Group ProcessesAgedAttitudeCommunity Health ServicesExerciseFemaleFocus GroupsHumansLeadershipMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsSedentary BehaviorSocial SupportVulnerable Populations

Identifiers

PMID26607789
PMCPMC4659218
OpenAlexW2179034670

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.