ArticleInternational journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being2026
Stakeholders' experiences of physical activity programmes development, implementation, and evaluation in universities in the United Kingdom and Indonesia.
Article in International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Facilitators and Barriers for Participation in Physical Activity Among Norwegian Physically Active First-Year Students: A Qualitative Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo explore stakeholders' experiences and perspectives regarding the development, implementation, and evaluation of physical activity (PA) programmes in universities which are critical to be understood to address the implementation challenges.
methodsThis qualitative study gathered experiences and perspectives from 34 participants recruited using purposive and snowball sampling. Participants represented five stakeholder levels, four types of United Kingdom institutions and three types of Indonesian institutions. Data were analysed using the six-stage framework method analysis by three coders, informed by critical realism and drawing on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the United Kingdom Medical Research Council framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions.
resultsSeven themes influenced PA programme implementation in university across both countries. Three themes cut across development, implementation and evaluation: institutional mobilisation and alignment, leadership and champions, external PA communities. Practical guidance and stakeholder capability shaped programme development. Delivery capacity and staffing, as well as physical and digital infrastructures shaped implementation. Institutional recognition facilitated evaluation.
conclusionsOur findings may help identify and address challenges faced by stakeholders in developing, implementing, and evaluating PA programmes in universities. They also suggest a need for context-sensitive support to help stakeholders address these challenges within their institutional settings.
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.