Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33228613›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2020

Challenges, opportunities and solutions for local physical activity stakeholders: an implementation case study from a cross-sectoral physical activity network in Northeast England.

Benjamin P Rigby, Peter van der Graaf, Liane B Azevedo, Louise Hayes, Benjamin Gardner, Caroline J Dodd-Reynolds

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. External Stakeholder Engagement With State Government Physical Activity Strategies: A Qualitative Exploration.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors.

Benjamin P RigbyDepartment of Sociology, Faculty of Social Sciences and Health, Durham University, 32 Old Elvet, Durham, DH1 3HN, UK. benjamin.p.rigby@durham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6997-5194
Peter van der GraafFuse: The Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon Tyne, NE1 7RY, UK.
Liane B AzevedoDepartment of Allied Health Professions, Sport and Exercise, School of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, Huddersfield, HD1 3DH, UK.
Louise HayesFuse: The Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon Tyne, NE1 7RY, UK.
Benjamin GardnerInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, Denmark Hill, London, SE5 8AF, UK.
Caroline J Dodd-ReynoldsWolfson Research Institute for Health and Wellbeing Physical Activity Special Interest Group, Durham University Queen's Campus, University Boulevard, Thornaby, Stockton-on-Tees, TS17 6BH, UK.

Funding

Fuse MR/K02325X/1Medical Research Council MR/K02325X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncreasingly, national policy initiatives and programmes have been developed to increase physical activity (PA). However, challenges in implementing and translating these policies into effective local-level programmes have persisted, and change in population PA levels has been small. This may be due to insufficient attention given to the implementation context, and the limited interactions between local policy-makers, practitioners and researchers. In this paper we use a case study of a cross-sectoral network in Northeast England, to identify the local-level challenges and opportunities for implementing PA policies and programmes, particularly the updated 2019 UK PA guidelines.

methodsFive focus groups (n = 59) were conducted with practice partners, local policy-makers and researchers during an initial workshop in April 2018. Through facilitated discussion, participants considered regional priorities for research and practice, along with barriers to implementing this agenda and how these may be overcome. During a second workshop in December 2018, overarching findings from workshop one were fedback to a similar group of stakeholders, along with national policy-makers, to stimulate feedback from delegates on experiences that may support the implementation of the UK PA guidelines locally, focusing on specific considerations for research, evidence and knowledge exchange.

resultsIn workshop one, three overarching themes were developed to capture local challenges and needs: (i) understanding complexity and context; (ii) addressing the knowledge and skills gap; and (iii) mismatched timescales and practices. In workshop two, participants' implementation plans encompassed: (i) exploring a systems approach to implementation; (ii) adapting policy to context; and (iii) local prioritising.

conclusionsOur findings suggest that academics, practitioners and policy-makers understand the complexities of implementing PA strategies, and the challenges of knowledge exchange. The updated UK PA guidelines policy presented an opportunity for multiple agencies to consider context-specific implementation and address enduring tensions between stakeholders. An organically derived implementation plan that prioritises PA, maps links to relevant local policies and supports a context-appropriate communication strategy, within local policy, practice and research networks, will help address these. We present 10 guiding principles to support transferable knowledge exchange activities within networks to facilitate implementation of national PA policy in local contexts.

Indexed as

ExercisePublic PolicyStakeholder ParticipationCommunity NetworksEnglandFocus GroupsGuidelines as TopicHumansOrganizational Case StudiesComplexityNetworksPhysical activityPolicyTranslational research

Identifiers

PMID33228613
PMCPMC7686773

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.