• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
How to select interventions for promoting physical activity in schools? Combining preferences of stakeholders and scientists.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。
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2023 Apr 25;20(1):48. doi: 10.1186/s12966-023-01452-y.
2
Engaging stakeholders and target groups in prioritising a public health intervention: the Creating Active School Environments (CASE) online Delphi study.让利益相关者和目标群体参与公共卫生干预措施的优先级排序:创建积极的学校环境(CASE)在线德尔菲研究。
BMJ Open. 2017 Jan 13;7(1):e013340. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013340.
3
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
4
Protocol for developing a core outcome set for evaluating school-based physical activity interventions in primary schools.制定用于评估小学基于学校的体育活动干预措施的核心结局指标集的方案。
BMJ Open. 2019 Dec 17;9(12):e031868. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031868.
5
Implementation and scale-up of physical activity and behavioural nutrition interventions: an evaluation roadmap.体力活动和行为营养干预措施的实施和扩大:评估路线图。
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2019 Nov 7;16(1):102. doi: 10.1186/s12966-019-0868-4.
6
A cluster randomised trial of an intervention to increase the implementation of physical activity practices in secondary schools: study protocol for scaling up the Physical Activity 4 Everyone (PA4E1) program.一项增加中学开展身体活动实践的干预措施的整群随机试验:扩大身体活动 4 每个人(PA4E1)计划的研究方案。
BMC Public Health. 2019 Jul 4;19(1):883. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-6965-0.
7
The West Midlands ActiVe lifestyle and healthy Eating in School children (WAVES) study: a cluster randomised controlled trial testing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted obesity prevention intervention programme targeted at children aged 6-7 years.西米德兰兹地区积极生活方式与儿童在校健康饮食研究(WAVES):一项针对 6-7 岁儿童的多方面肥胖预防干预计划的临床有效性和成本效益的集群随机对照试验。
Health Technol Assess. 2018 Feb;22(8):1-608. doi: 10.3310/hta22080.
8
An evaluation of the 'bottom-up' implementation of the Active at school! programme in Quebec, Canada.加拿大魁北克省“积极在学校!”项目“自下而上”实施情况评估。
Health Promot Int. 2022 Aug 1;37(4). doi: 10.1093/heapro/daac095.
9
The effectiveness of school-based family asthma educational programs on the quality of life and number of asthma exacerbations of children aged five to 18 years diagnosed with asthma: a systematic review protocol.以学校为基础的家庭哮喘教育项目对5至18岁确诊哮喘儿童生活质量和哮喘发作次数的有效性:一项系统评价方案
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Oct;13(10):69-81. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-2335.
10
Scale-up of the Physical Activity 4 Everyone (PA4E1) intervention in secondary schools: 24-month implementation and cost outcomes from a cluster randomised controlled trial.在中学开展“全民体育活动 4 号”(PA4E1)干预计划的推广:一项基于群组随机对照试验的 24 个月实施和成本结果。
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021 Oct 23;18(1):137. doi: 10.1186/s12966-021-01206-8.

引用本文的文献

1
DE-PASS Best Evidence Statement (BESt): Determinants of self-report physical activity and sedentary behaviours in children in settings: A systematic review and meta-analyses.DE-PASS 最佳证据陈述(BESt):在特定环境中儿童自我报告体力活动和久坐行为的决定因素:系统评价和荟萃分析。
PLoS One. 2024 Nov 25;19(11):e0309890. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0309890. eCollection 2024.
2
Increasing adolescents' physical activity levels through a comprehensive school-based physical activity program: study protocol of the cluster randomized controlled trial Active School.通过综合学校体育活动计划提高青少年的身体活动水平:集群随机对照试验“积极学校”的研究方案。
BMC Pediatr. 2024 Sep 4;24(1):561. doi: 10.1186/s12887-024-05034-0.
3
Cross-validation of the Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy second edition (CAPL-2) for Spanish children.加拿大身体素养评估第二版(CAPL-2)针对西班牙儿童的交叉验证。
BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2024 Jul 11;10(3):e001971. doi: 10.1136/bmjsem-2024-001971. eCollection 2024.
4
DE-PASS best evidence statement (BESt): determinants of adolescents' device-based physical activity and sedentary behaviour in settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.DE-PASS 最佳证据陈述(BESt):环境中青少年基于设备的身体活动和久坐行为的决定因素:系统评价和荟萃分析。
BMC Public Health. 2024 Jun 26;24(1):1706. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-19136-y.
5
Multilevel needs assessment of physical activity, sport, psychological needs, and nutrition in rural children and adults.农村儿童和成人的身体活动、运动、心理需求和营养的多层次需求评估。
Front Public Health. 2023 Nov 15;11:1290567. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1290567. eCollection 2023.
6
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.使用一套定制的基于证据的干预措施工具包来提高小学儿童的身体活动和心肺健康:ACTIPROS 集群随机可行性试验的结果。
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2023 Aug 18;20(1):99. doi: 10.1186/s12966-023-01497-z.

本文引用的文献

1
A scoping review on characteristics of school-based interventions to promote physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness among 6- to 10-year-old children.一项针对 6 至 10 岁儿童的以学校为基础的促进身体活动和心肺适能的干预措施特点的范围综述。
Prev Med. 2022 Feb;155:106920. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106920. Epub 2021 Dec 16.
2
Cost-effectiveness and return on investment of school-based health promotion programmes for chronic disease prevention.学校健康促进计划预防慢性病的成本效益和投资回报。
Eur J Public Health. 2021 Dec 1;31(6):1183-1189. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckab130.
3
Considerations for Individual-Level Versus Whole-School Physical Activity Interventions: Stakeholder Perspectives.考虑个体层面与全校层面体育活动干预措施:利益相关者视角。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jul 18;18(14):7628. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18147628.
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.
5
Implementation at-scale of school-based physical activity interventions: A systematic review utilizing the RE-AIM framework.基于学校的身体活动干预措施的大规模实施:利用 RE-AIM 框架进行的系统评价。
Obes Rev. 2021 Jul;22(7):e13184. doi: 10.1111/obr.13184. Epub 2021 Feb 1.
6
How effective are physical activity interventions when they are scaled-up: a systematic review.当体育活动干预措施扩大规模时,其效果如何:系统评价。
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021 Jan 22;18(1):16. doi: 10.1186/s12966-021-01080-4.
7
Protocol for a scoping review to identify and map intervention components of existing school-based interventions for the promotion of physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness among school children aged 6-10 years old.一项范围综述的方案,旨在识别和梳理现有针对6至10岁学童促进身体活动和心肺适能的校本干预措施的干预组成部分。
BMJ Open. 2020 Oct 6;10(10):e037848. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037848.
8
Identification and evaluation of risk of generalizability biases in pilot versus efficacy/effectiveness trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.在试点试验与疗效/有效性试验中识别和评估推广偏差的风险:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020 Feb 11;17(1):19. doi: 10.1186/s12966-020-0918-y.
9
Using a multi-stakeholder experience-based design process to co-develop the Creating Active Schools Framework.运用多方利益相关者基于经验的设计过程共同制定《创建积极学校框架》。
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020 Feb 7;17(1):13. doi: 10.1186/s12966-020-0917-z.
10
Adoption, implementation and sustainability of school-based physical activity and sedentary behaviour interventions in real-world settings: a systematic review.在真实环境中采用、实施和维持基于学校的身体活动和久坐行为干预措施:系统评价。
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2019 Dec 2;16(1):120. doi: 10.1186/s12966-019-0876-4.

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.

DOI:10.1186/s12966-023-01452-y
PMID:37098620
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10127415/
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。