ArticleHealth promotion international2021
Factors influencing the effectiveness of a Cooperative Planning approach in the school setting.
Article in Health promotion international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- School staff experiences on involvement in a co-creation process: a Health CASCADE scoping review and thematic synthesis.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Assessing the Feasibility and Acceptability of a Primary Care Socio-Ecological Approach to Improve Physical Activity Adherence among People with Type 2 Diabetes: The SENWI Project.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Cooperative planning and its utilization in German physical activity promotion: a brief introduction.Health promotion international · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of the Health.edu project was to develop, implement and evaluate effective and feasible measures addressing students' health-related knowledge and understanding (HKU) in physical education (PE) with a specific focus on a co-creation approach (Cooperative Planning). The general procedure was identical in the four intervention schools involved; however, effectiveness (i.e. an increase in HKU) differed. Therefore, the present study investigated how different contextual factors supported or hindered the Cooperative Planning approach (evaluation of program implementation). To consider different perspectives in the analysis, we used data triangulation. On the one hand, written protocols (N = 19) document relevant statements and decisions in each planning group meeting (scientific perspective). On the other hand, we captured the participating PE teachers' (N = 8) individual attitudes after the Cooperative Planning process through semi-structured interviews (teachers' perspective). Data were analysed via qualitative content analysis. We identified three relevant factors with influence on the Cooperative Planning approach. First, the Cooperative Planning intervention worked if teachers saw a benefit in providing evidence-based knowledge, reflected their teaching practices and made an effort to implement new teaching strategies. Second, it was beneficial to have students represented as partners in the decision-making process. Third, support from the principal appeared to be helpful but not mandatory for implementing progressive pedagogical concepts. Continuous monitoring and reflection on those factors by the leading project team might help facilitate subsequent interventions using Cooperative Planning.
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.