Peter Gelius1, Hans Peter Brandl-Bredenbeck2, Holger Hassel3, Julika Loss4, Ralf Sygusch5, Susanne Tittlbach6, Clemens Töpfer7, Ulrike Ungerer-Röhrich6, Klaus Pfeifer5. 1. Department für Sportwissenschaft und Sport, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Gebbertstr. 123 b, 91058, Erlangen, Deutschland. Peter.gelius@fau.de. 2. Institut für Sportwissenschaft, Universität Augsburg, Augsburg, Deutschland. 3. Institut für angewandte Gesundheitswissenschaften, Hochschule Coburg, Coburg, Deutschland. 4. Institut für Epidemiologie und Präventivmedizin, Universität Regensburg, Regensburg, Deutschland. 5. Department für Sportwissenschaft und Sport, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Gebbertstr. 123 b, 91058, Erlangen, Deutschland. 6. Institut für Sportwissenschaft, Universität Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Deutschland. 7. Institut für Sportwissenschaft, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Jena, Deutschland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite various national and international political initiatives for promoting physical activity at the population level, the development of effective interventions for physical activity promotion remains a challenge. In this context, there is a growing interest in participatory approaches that actively involve central setting actors in the development of specific measures. AIM OF THE ARTICLE: This article reports on the experience made by the Capital4Health research consortium while using a participatory approach called "cooperative planning" to increase capabilities for physical activity across different age groups. RESULTS: Capital4Health employed the cooperative planning approach in the childcare, school, vocational training (car mechatronics and nursing), and community setting (with a focus on men 50+). While the central elements of the approach were implemented in all settings, planning processes varied significantly with respect to the spectrum of involved actors, the number of participants and sessions, the specific measures developed, the evaluation methods, and the effects achieved at an individual and systems level. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of the Capital4Health principal investigators, the preliminary empirical results from the different settings allow for the overall conclusion that the cooperative planning approach can work and generate health promotion impact in very different settings. However, it must (and can) be adapted to the respective setting, especially in relation to involving population groups. Actors' readiness for change is crucial, as physical activity does not always have top priority in settings. In this context, key individuals can make a decisive contribution to a project's success.
BACKGROUND: Despite various national and international political initiatives for promoting physical activity at the population level, the development of effective interventions for physical activity promotion remains a challenge. In this context, there is a growing interest in participatory approaches that actively involve central setting actors in the development of specific measures. AIM OF THE ARTICLE: This article reports on the experience made by the Capital4Health research consortium while using a participatory approach called "cooperative planning" to increase capabilities for physical activity across different age groups. RESULTS: Capital4Health employed the cooperative planning approach in the childcare, school, vocational training (car mechatronics and nursing), and community setting (with a focus on men 50+). While the central elements of the approach were implemented in all settings, planning processes varied significantly with respect to the spectrum of involved actors, the number of participants and sessions, the specific measures developed, the evaluation methods, and the effects achieved at an individual and systems level. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of the Capital4Health principal investigators, the preliminary empirical results from the different settings allow for the overall conclusion that the cooperative planning approach can work and generate health promotion impact in very different settings. However, it must (and can) be adapted to the respective setting, especially in relation to involving population groups. Actors' readiness for change is crucial, as physical activity does not always have top priority in settings. In this context, key individuals can make a decisive contribution to a project's success.
Authors: James F Sallis; Robert B Cervero; William Ascher; Karla A Henderson; M Katherine Kraft; Jacqueline Kerr Journal: Annu Rev Public Health Date: 2006 Impact factor: 21.981
Authors: Johanna Popp; Johannes Carl; Eva Grüne; Jana Semrau; Peter Gelius; Klaus Pfeifer Journal: Health Promot Int Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 2.483
Authors: Julika Loss; Nicola Brew-Sam; Boris Metz; Helmut Strobl; Alexandra Sauter; Susanne Tittlbach Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-03-30 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Anja Weissenfels; Wolfgang Geidl; Eriselda Mino; Inga Naber; Sarah Klamroth; Peter Gelius; Karim Abu-Omar; Klaus Pfeifer Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-03-22 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Peter C Gelius; Raluca M Sommer; Karim Abu-Omar; Valentin Schätzlein; Marc Suhrcke Journal: Health Promot Int Date: 2021-12-13 Impact factor: 2.483