ArticleThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2023
How to select interventions for promoting physical activity in schools? Combining preferences of stakeholders and scientists.
Article in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- DE-PASS best evidence statement (BESt): determinants of adolescents' device-based physical activity and sedentary behaviour in settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC public health · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Use of a toolbox of tailored evidence-based interventions to improve children's physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness in primary schools: results of the ACTIPROS cluster-randomized feasibility trial.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2023Trial
- Physical activity promotion in Quebec primary schools: equity, intervention practices, and areas for improvement.Health promotion international · 2026Article
- Increasing adolescents' physical activity levels through a comprehensive school-based physical activity program: study protocol of the cluster randomized controlled trial Active School.BMC pediatrics · 2024Article
- Cross-validation of the Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy second edition (CAPL-2) for Spanish children.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2024Article
- Multilevel needs assessment of physical activity, sport, psychological needs, and nutrition in rural children and adults.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe failure to scale-up and implement physical activity (PA) interventions in real world contexts, which were previously successful under controlled conditions, may be attributed to the different criteria of stakeholders and scientists in the selection process of available interventions. Therefore, the aim of our study was to investigate and compare the criteria applied by local stakeholders and scientists for selecting amongst suitable school-based PA interventions for implementation.
methodsWe conducted a three-round repeated survey Delphi study with local stakeholders (n = 7; Bremen, Germany) and international scientific PA experts (n = 6). Independently for both panels, two rounds were utilized to develop a list of criteria and the definitions of criteria, followed by a prioritization of the criteria in the third round. For each panel, a narrative analysis was used to rank-order unique criteria, list the number of scorers for the unique criteria and synthesize criteria into overarching categories.
resultsThe stakeholders developed a list of 53 unique criteria, synthesized into 11 categories with top-ranked criteria being 'free of costs', 'longevity' and 'integration into everyday school life'. The scientists listed 35 unique criteria, synthesized into 7 categories with the top-ranked criteria being 'efficacy', 'potential for reach' and 'feasibility'. The top ranked unique criteria in the stakeholder panel were distributed over many categories, whereas four out of the top six criteria in the scientist panel were related to 'evidence'.
conclusionsAlthough stakeholders and scientists identified similar criteria, major differences were disclosed in the prioritization of the criteria. We recommend an early collaboration of stakeholders and scientists in the design, implementation, and evaluation of PA interventions.
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.