ArticleThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2019
Co-designing obesity prevention interventions together with children: intervention mapping meets youth-led participatory action research.
Article in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- School-based healthy eating interventions for adolescents aged 10-19 years: an umbrella review.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2024Pooled it
- How Are Adolescents Participating in the Transformation of Healthy Food Environments? A Scoping Review of Empirical Research.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2026Article
- Your project or our project? Evaluating the participatory development of an adolescent healthy sleep intervention.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Using intervention mapping framework to develop knowledge translation program: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Feasibility of co-creating and delivering a youth-led noncommunicable diseases risk reduction intervention in schools of slums in Karachi, Pakistan: protocol for a mixed-methods, pre- and post-intervention study.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2025Article
- Youth involvement in policy processes in public health, education, and social work-A scoping review.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2025Article
- The multidisciplinary and participatory process to develop the Rubric for Learning Communities about Health Approaches.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- A qualitative study on facilitators and barriers to adoption and implementation of nutrition interventions in higher education settings in Flanders.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Intervention Mapping for Refining a Sport-Based Public Health Intervention in Rural Schools.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Ecological system theory and school-age obesity in Thailand: a participation action research for implications to practice.Primary health care research & development · 2024Article
- Facilitating co-research: lessons learned from reflection forms within three participatory action research projects.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- Navigating process evaluation in co-creation: a Health CASCADE scoping review of used frameworks and assessed components.BMJ global health · 2024Article
- Ecological system theory and community participation to promote healthy food environments for obesity and non-communicable diseases prevention among school-age children.Public health nutrition · 2023Article
- Exploring the Health Effectiveness of a Physical Activity Program Co-Constructed with Students after the COVID-19 Pandemic.Nutrients · 2023Article
- How to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Health Promotion Actions Developed Through Youth-Centered Participatory Action Research.Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education · 2023Article
- Knowledge in youth is wisdom in age: involving young people in research.Nature reviews. Endocrinology · 2023Article
- Children, young people and parent engagement in health intervention design and implementation: A scoping review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- Co-Produce, Co-Design, Co-Create, or Co-Construct-Who Does It and How Is It Done in Chronic Disease Prevention? A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Empowering American Indian and Alaska Native youth to lead measurement development of an indigenous adolescent wellbeing measure: A protocol paper.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Motivating Social Influencers to Engage in Health Behavior Interventions.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundYouth-led Participatory Action Research (YPAR) involves children throughout the process of developing and implementing interventions. Combining YPAR with a structural approach for designing and planning interventions, such as Intervention Mapping (IM), may further improve implementation and effectiveness of interventions. This paper describes how YPAR and IM were combined in the Kids in Action study.
methodsThe Kids in Action study aims to improve health behaviors of 9-12-year old children living in a low socioeconomic neighborhood in Amsterdam, by co-designing interventions with these children. At each of four schools 6-8 children (N = 18-24 total per year) and two academic researchers formed participatory groups that met weekly or every fortnight during two school years. An IM expert panel advised the participatory groups on the application of IM.
resultsFollowing the IM protocol, we conducted a participatory needs assessment with children, parents and professionals, in IM-step 1. In IM-step 2, the IM expert panel constructed matrices of program objectives, and the children provided feedback. In collaboration with children programs were designed and produced using an iterative process during IM-steps 3-4. In IM-step 5, the participatory groups and professional community partners designed the implementation plan. Finally, in IM-step 6, the protocol of the process and effect evaluation - executed by academic researchers with input from children - was developed.
conclusionsBy combining YPAR and IM, several interventions have been developed and implemented, varying from a school water policy to extracurricular sports activities. Sharing responsibility with children was challenging when combining IM with YPAR. In YPAR children are given as much autonomy as possible, while traditional IM development work is primarily done by academic researchers. Strengths in combining IM and YPAR include the involvement of the end-users - children - throughout the process while at the same time developing interventions based on existing evidence. Time-management, a multidisciplinary team, and flexibility are important conditions when combining IM with YPAR. A strong community project group, with professionals who were willing to help children develop and execute their ideas, was an important success factor. This study can serve as an example to other YPAR studies developing interventions using the IM protocol.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.