| Literature DB >> 35351725 |
Johanna Jacoba de Boer1, Anita Feleus2, Arlette Hesselink3, Petra Siemonsma3, John Verhoef3, Maarten Schmitt2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify implicit and more profound barriers and facilitators and involving context elements to accomplish sustained physical activity (PA) in patients with a chronic disease. Understanding these barriers and facilitators may help develop future strategies to be used by healthcare professionals in primary care to support patients with a chronic disease to reach sustained PA. DESIGN AND METHODS: The qualitative, narrative research method storytelling was applied. Perspectives of both patients with a chronic disease (n=12) and involved healthcare professionals (n=11) were collected. Stories were audiotaped and retrieved from the transcriptions. Analysis involved a cyclic process of constant comparison. Main themes were arranged in the theoretical framework of the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour (COM-B) model. PARTICIPANTS: Patients were adults with a chronic disease or at high risk of developing a chronic disease who participated in a PA promoting programme. Eligible healthcare professionals were those involved in these PA promoting programmes in primary care, such as physiotherapists, nurse practitioners or sports consultants.Entities:
Keywords: preventive medicine; primary care; qualitative research; sports medicine
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35351725 PMCID: PMC8961147 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057236
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Analysis process
| Phase 1: collecting and checking stories | |
| Step 1: transcription | Transcripts were made ad verbatim of each interview using audio recordings by the interviewer. |
| Step 2: stories | The interviewer collected stories from the transcripts using a consensus-based format, containing agreements on narrative elements and lay-out ( |
| Step 3: member check | Participants were asked whether they recognised their stories derived from the interview, small adjustments were made in the stories. |
| Phase 2: analysing by main research group | |
| Step 4: choosing relevant stories per perspective | After the stories were established, the main researchers continued further analysis. Stories were read and reread to familiarise with the data. A story was of relevance when it contained experiences of barriers and/or facilitators of sustained PA. Stories that where of relevance for the research question were independently chosen. Duplicates were included automatically in further analysis; inclusion of other stories was discussed, and consensus was found within duos. |
| Step 5: themes | Themes were linked to each story; consensus on the themes and their contents was reached in duos per perspective (open coding). Related themes were grouped together into main themes (axial coding). We asked ourselves what the essence of the stories per main theme was and created a story web using Microsoft Excel. |
| Step 6: comparing perspectives | Both duos presented the main themes from their own perspective. Themes, insights, similarities and differences were discussed. If applicable, themes were renamed and consensus was reached in the main themes. Thereafter, constant comparison method was carried out in which conclusions were checked by going back to the stories. Differences between the perspectives were noted. |
| Phase 3: integration to framework | |
| Step 7: integration COM-B model | A discussion was conducted about the meaning of the separate parts of the COM-B model, in order to ensure the researchers were on the same page about the meaning of the COM-B model. After reading and rereading the themes and underlying stories, the four main researchers arranged the themes into the framework of the COM-B model ( |
COM-B, Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour; PA, physical activity.
Characteristics of participants
| Patients | Healthcare professionals | ||||||
| Name* | Sex | Age (years) | Chronic disease | Name* | Sex | Age (years) | Profession |
| Fariza | Female | 30–39 | Type-II diabetes, obese | Lisa | Female | 30–39 | Nurse practitioner |
| Paula | Female | 70–79 | Asthma, stroke | Niki | Female | 20–29 | Physiotherapist |
| Bert | Male | 70–79 | CVD, stroke | Andy | Female | 30–39 | Physiotherapist |
| Myra | Female | 40–49 | Obese | Jacky | Female | 20–29 | Physiotherapist |
| Theo | Male | 80–89 | Frailty | Hope | Female | 30–39 | Physiotherapist |
| Pete | Male | 70–79 | Stroke | Eddy | Male | 50–59 | Nurse practitioner |
| Vera | Female | 40–49 | Obese, osteoarthritis | Nathan | Male | 30–39 | Sport consultant |
| Riki | Male | 70–79 | Obese | Barbra | Female | 30–39 | Physiotherapist |
| Wilda | Female | 90–99 | Frailty | Mara | Female | 40–49 | Physiotherapist |
| Mable | Female | 50–59 | Osteoarthritis, obese | Gaby | Female | 60–69 | Nurse practitioner |
| Rose | Female | 40–49 | Obese, Turner-syndrome | Jake | Male | 50–59 | Physiotherapist |
| Anne | Female | 60–69 | Osteoarthritis, obese | ||||
*Names are fictitious.
CVD, cardiovascular disease.
Figure 1Results analysis process.
Figure 2Main themes organised according to COM-B model. The main themes are linked to the C (capability), O (opportunity) or M (motivation).