Schlüsselindikatoren für kooperative Planungsprozesse: Fallstudienergebnisse aus deutschen sportwissenschaftlichen und bewegungsfördernden Projekten in Deutschland

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to map the phases and individual steps of the cooperative planning process, a specific participatory approach frequently used in German sports and physical activity promotion, and to explore facilitators, barriers, and challenges experienced by those leading its implementation in selected projects. Background More than half of the global population is not physically active enough. Therefore, the demand for more effective physical activity programs is growing. Participatory-based interventions, using the cooperative planning process, offer the potential to plan new programs that match population group and setting characteristics. This approach was extensively applied in German sports and physical activity fields, serving as a mechanism to develop and implement specific measures to change the population’s behaviour. We analysed four German empirical projects promoting sports and physical activity to identify how the approach was adapted to each project, which phases were considered, and which key performance indicators enhanced (facilitators), exacerbated (barriers), or challenged the process. Methods This study used a mixed-methods approach, including a systematic analysis of documents (n = 10) and in-depth, semi-structured interviews (n = 4) with the empirical projects’ scientific members. Results The cooperative planning process was shaped across its phases by several facilitators, challenges, and barriers. Diverse assessment procedures and recruitment tools can facilitate preparation of the process, while moderation requires particular attention during the development phase. Identifying a champion in the transition subphase and providing ongoing scientific counselling can assure the implementation of an action plan with tailored measures for sports and physical activity promotion. Conclusions This study contributes to a better understanding of the complexity of the cooperative planning approach and, therefore, flexibility in sports and physical activity promotion projects. Many preparation actions, several challenges in the planning process, and a critical transition in implementation responsibilities should be considered by future projects intending to adopt the approach.

“For me, it's just a piece of freedom”—Increased empowerment through physical activity promotion among socially disadvantaged women

“…Women actively participated in the planning and implementation of low-threshold exercise classes (e.g., free of charge, complementary childcare, proximity to place of residence). BIG was built upon the “cooperative planning approach” ( 29 , 30 ), which equally involved women, researchers, and community-level policy and practice stakeholders (e.g., mayors, sports club representatives, and trainers) in the planning of PA offerings. Since all members of the cooperative planning provided specific resources (e.g., funds, access to sport facilities, contact information for the target women), it was possible to implement these programs at the community level.…”

Co-creating physical activity interventions: Findings from a multiple case study using mixed methods

“…Notably, the activity characteristic researchers' input & support had a positive effect on the relevance of the project in all three settings, underlining the importance of the researchers' role and contribution in the planning phase. This was supported by other studies highlighting the involvement of researchers as a key performance indicator for enhancing CP (19) and recommending that researchers work closely with end-users and other non-academic stakeholders from the outset of a cocreation process to ensure the relevance of findings (57). Overall, the current study highlights the complex and setting-specific interplay between activity characteristics and key factors, as well as the relevance of activity characteristics for the success or failure of the intervention implementation.…”

“…Against this background, the research project Physical Activity-related Health Competence in Apprenticeship and Vocational Education (PArC-AVE), which was embedded in the research consortium Capital4Health, focused on PA promotion in the automotive mechatronics and nursing care sectors using a co-creation approach called cooperative planning (CP) ( 17 , 18 ). CP engages non-academic stakeholders, including members of the target population, and researchers in an equal decision-making process to plan, develop, and implement interventions ( 19 ). Thus, CP exhibits parallels with other participatory or co-creation approaches (e.g., intervention mapping or community-based participatory research), but offers a unique constellation by combining the four key components of theory and goal orientation, involvement of all relevant stakeholders, knowledge co-production, and the use of progress monitoring and feedback loops ( 20 ).…”

Students’ Perspectives on School Sports Trips in the Context of Participation and Democratic Education

“…It is also a good way to increase the participation of underrepresented groups or people who are not as physically active as others [ 55 , 56 ]. There is also evidence of the positive effects of cooperative planning in the sense of health promotion [ 57 ], as well as in many domains related to physical, social, and psychological variables [ 58 ]. The nature of school sports trips can contribute to all this, which is especially important with the limited number of hours of regular PE.…”