Suppr超能文献

如何选择促进学校体育活动的干预措施?兼顾利益相关者和科学家的偏好。

How to select interventions for promoting physical activity in schools? Combining preferences of stakeholders and scientists.

机构信息

Department of Prevention and Evaluation, Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology - BIPS, Achterstraße 30, 28359, Bremen, Germany.

Department of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Milken Institute School of Public Health, The George Washington University, Washington, D.C., USA.

出版信息

Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2023 Apr 25;20(1):48. doi: 10.1186/s12966-023-01452-y.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The 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.

METHODS

We 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.

RESULTS

The 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'.

CONCLUSIONS

Although 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.

摘要

背景

在现实环境中未能扩大和实施先前在受控条件下成功的身体活动(PA)干预措施,可能归因于利益相关者和科学家在选择现有干预措施时的不同标准。因此,我们的研究目的是调查和比较当地利益相关者和科学家在选择适合学校的 PA 干预措施以进行实施时所应用的标准。

方法

我们对当地利益相关者(n=7;德国不来梅)和国际科学 PA 专家(n=6)进行了三轮重复调查 Delphi 研究。对于两个小组,都使用两轮来制定标准清单和标准定义,然后在第三轮对标准进行优先级排序。对于每个小组,都使用叙述性分析对独特标准进行排名,列出独特标准的评分者数量,并将标准综合为总体类别。

结果

利益相关者制定了一份 53 项独特标准的清单,综合为 11 个类别,排名最高的标准为“免费”、“持久”和“融入日常学校生活”。科学家列出了 35 项独特标准,综合为 7 个类别,排名最高的标准为“疗效”、“潜在可达性”和“可行性”。利益相关者小组中排名最高的独特标准分布在许多类别中,而科学家小组中排名前六的标准中有四个与“证据”有关。

结论

尽管利益相关者和科学家确定了类似的标准,但在标准的优先级排序上存在重大差异。我们建议利益相关者和科学家在 PA 干预措施的设计、实施和评估早期合作。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

4
Eight Investments That Work for Physical Activity.八项适合身体活动的投资。
J Phys Act Health. 2021 May 14;18(6):625-630. doi: 10.1123/jpah.2021-0112. Print 2021 Jun 1.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验