4.6 Article

Making a move in exercise referral: co-development of a physical activity referral scheme

Journal

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 40, Issue 4, Pages E586-E593

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdy072

Keywords

action research; management and policy; population-based and preventative services

Funding

  1. Faculty of Science at Liverpool John Moores University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Translational research is required to ensure exercise referral schemes (ERSs) are evidence-based and reflect local needs. This article reports process data from the co-development phase of an ERS, providing an insight into (i) factors that must be considered when translating evidence to practice in an ERS setting, and (ii) challenges and facilitators of conducting participatory research involving multiple stakeholders. Methods An ERS was iteratively co-developed by a multidisciplinary stakeholder group (commissioners, managers, practitioners, patients and academics) via five participatory meetings and an online survey. Audio data (e.g. group discussions) and visual data (e.g. whiteboard notes) were recorded and analysed using NVivo-10 electronic software. Results Factors to consider when translating evidence to practice in an ERS setting included (i) current ERS culture; (ii) skills, safety and accountability; and (iii) resources and capacity. The co-development process was facilitated by needs-analysis, open questions, multidisciplinary debate and reflective practice. Challenges included contrasting views, irregular attendance and (mis) perceptions of evaluation. Conclusion The multidisciplinary co-development process highlighted cultural and pragmatic issues related to exercise referral provision, resulting in an evidence-based intervention framework designed to be implemented within existing infrastructures. Further work is required to establish the feasibility and effectiveness of the co-developed intervention in practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available