Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36315098›Full record

ArticleQualitative health research2022

Moving on From the Delphi Study: The Development of a Physical Activity Training Programme Prototype Through Co-produced Qualitative Research.

Javier Monforte, Chris Davis, Shaesta Saleem, Brett Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Qualitative health research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Javier MonforteDepartment of Sport and Exercise Sciences, 3057Durham University, Durham, UK.
Chris DavisWe can Move, Active Gloucestershire, Gloucester, UK.
Shaesta Saleem
Brett SmithDepartment of Sport and Exercise Sciences, 3057Durham University, Durham, UK.

Funding

Department of Health NIHR200173
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This research developed from a co-produced project called Moving Social Work. The purpose of this ongoing project is to train social workers in how to promote physical activity for and to disabled people. The first stage of the project consisted of building evidence to design a training programme prototype. As part of this stage, a Delphi study was conducted to ask leading experts about what should be included in the prototype. Questionnaires were sent to participants until consensus was reached. In reflecting on the results, people involved in the study commented that there was more about the experts' opinions than percentages of agreement. Our co-production partners resolved that the Delphi was insufficient and called for detailed conversations with the experts. In response to this call, follow-up interviews with 10 experts who participated in the final questionnaire round of the Delphi were carried out. The interviews were co-produced, dyadic and data prompted. Dialogical inquiry was used to frame and co-analyse data. The results illuminate the capacity of qualitative research to justify, rectify, complicate, clarify, concretize, expand and question consensus-based evidence. The implications of the results for Moving Social Work are discussed. Beyond the empirical border of the project, wider contributions to literature are presented. As part of these, two key statements are highlighted and warranted: dialogical inquiry supports the practice of co-produced research, and Delphi studies should be followed by a Big Q qualitative study.

Indexed as

ExerciseConsensusDelphi TechniqueHumansQualitative ResearchSurveys and Questionnairesco-productiondata prompted interviewsdialogical inquirydyadic interviewsonline interviewsphysical activity promotionsocial work

Identifiers

PMID36315098
PMCPMC9629513

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.