Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38777585›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Coproducing a physical activity referral scheme in Germany: a qualitative analysis of stakeholder experiences.

Sarah Klamroth, Eriselda Mino, Inga Naber, Anja Weissenfels, Wolfgang Geidl, Peter Gelius, Karim Abu-Omar, Klaus Pfeifer

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04947787 (Establishing a Physical Activity Referral Scheme for People With Noncommunicable Diseases in the German Healthcare System), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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.

NCT04947787 nacompletednot on this map

Establishing a Physical Activity Referral Scheme for People With Noncommunicable Diseases in the German Healthcare System

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Erlangen-NürnbergRan2022 to 2023Enrolled168ConditionsNon-Communicable Chronic DiseasesArmsPhysical activity referral scheme (PARS), Physical activity advice (PAA)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
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

8 authors.

Sarah KlamrothDepartment of Sport Science and Sport, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany sarah.klamroth@fau.de.ORCID 0000-0002-1302-1842
Eriselda MinoDepartment of Sport Science and Sport, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1885-0009
Inga NaberDepartment of Sport Science and Sport, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Anja WeissenfelsDepartment of Sport Science and Sport, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3271-4935
Wolfgang GeidlDepartment of Sport Science and Sport, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Peter GeliusInsitute of Sport Sciences, Université de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Karim Abu-OmarDepartment of Sport Science and Sport, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Klaus PfeiferDepartment of Sport Science and Sport, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study evaluated stakeholders' experiences of participating in a coproduction process to develop a physical activity referral scheme (PARS) in the German healthcare system. The focus was on examining facilitators and challenges, along with gathering insights on potential modifications to the joint development process, all from the viewpoint of stakeholders.

designThis qualitative study employed one-to-one semi-structured interviews, and the findings were analysed using summarising qualitative content analysis.

settingThe study focused on the German healthcare system.

participantsSeven stakeholders from the coproduction process were purposefully selected for interviews using maximum variation sampling. The interviewees represented different sectors (physician associations, physical activity professionals' associations, health insurance companies and patient organisations), various positions within their organisations, and different levels of attendance during the coproduction process.

resultsIn almost all interviews, the following factors were highlighted as facilitators of the development process: coproduction approach, process of coproduction, multi-sector stakeholder group, possibility of active participation, coordinating role of researchers, communication, atmosphere and interaction. In contrast, differences in roles and hierarchy, merging of different perspectives, clarification of intervention costs, and competition and conflicting interests were pointed out as challenges. Only a few suggestions regarding adaptations in terms of group composition and cooperation among stakeholders were mentioned.

conclusionsStakeholder experiences with the joint development process were predominantly positive, indicating that coproduction is a beneficial approach for the development of PARS intended for integration into healthcare systems. The effective management of power differences among stakeholders is intricately tied to the coproduction method; therefore, it should be selected carefully. The research team plays a pivotal role in coordinating and negotiating the process, and the team should be equipped with a diverse set of skills and knowledge, particularly to understand the intricacies of the healthcare system where the PARS is intended for implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04947787.

Indexed as

ExerciseQualitative ResearchReferral and ConsultationDelivery of Health CareGermanyHumansInterviews as TopicStakeholder Participationhealth servicespatient participationprimary health carequalitative research

Identifiers

PMID38777585
PMCPMC11116878

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.