Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

ACC 2024 Congress

Catch up on all the top stories and latest evidence in cardiology research with our ACC 2024 Congress hub page.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Study protocol

Care–physical activity initiatives in the neighbourhood: study protocol for mixed-methods research on participation, effective elements, impact, and funding methods

Authors: Annemarie Wagemakers, Lisanne S. Mulderij, Kirsten T. Verkooijen, Stef Groenewoud, Maria A. Koelen

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

In the Netherlands, people with a low socioeconomic status (SES) live approximately 6 years less and are less engaged in physical activity (PA) than high SES citizens. This contributes to the persistent health inequalities between low and high SES citizens. Care–PA initiatives are deemed effective for stimulating PA and improving health and participation among peoples with a low SES. In those initiatives, multiple sectors (e.g. sports, health insurers, municipalities) collaborate to connect primary care and PA at neighbourhood level.
This study focuses on two Dutch municipalities that aim to invest in Health in All Policies (HiAP) and care–PA initiatives to improve the health of people with low SES. The aim is to gain insight into (1) the short-term (3 months) and long-term (1 year) outcomes of participating in care–PA initiatives for low SES citizens in terms of health, quality of life, and societal participation, (2) the effective elements that contribute to these outcomes, (3) the direct and perceived societal costs and benefits of care–PA initiatives, and (4) alternative ways to fund integrated care, prevention, and care–PA initiatives at neighbourhood level.

Methods

The study will be built on a mixed-methods design guided by action research to continuously facilitate participatory processes and practical solutions. To assess outcomes, body measurements and questionnaires will be used as part of a pre-test/post-test design. Focus groups and interviews will be conducted to gain an in-depth understanding of outcomes and action elements. Action elements will be explored by using multiple tools: concept mapping, the logic model, and capacity mapping. Direct and perceived societal costs will be measured by administrative data from healthcare insurers (before-after design) and the effectiveness arena. An alternative funding model will be identified based on literature study, expert meetings, and municipal workshops.

Discussion

Initiatives addressing multiple factors at different levels in an integral way are a challenge for evaluation. Multi-methods and tools are required, and data need to be interpreted comprehensively in order to contribute to a contextual insight into what works and why in relation to HiAP and care–PA initiatives.
Literature
1.
Hoeymans N, van Loon A, van den Berg M, Harbers M, Hilderink H, van Oers H, et al. Een gezonder Nederland - De Volksgezondheid Toekomst Verkenning 2014 [Towards a healthier Netherlands - Dutch public health status and foresight study 2014]. Bilthoven: National Institute for public health and the Environment; 2014.
2.
Kawachi I, Subramanian SV, Almeida-Filho N. A glossary for health inequalities. J Epidemiol Community Heal. 2002;56:647–53.CrossRef
3.
Mackenbach JP. The persistence of health inequalities in modern welfare states: the explanation of a paradox. Soc Sci Med. 2012;75:761–9.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Hildebrandt V, Bernaards C, Hofsttetter H. Trendrapport Bewegen en Gezondheid 2000/2014 [Trend report physical activity and health 2000/2014]. Leiden: TNO; 2015.
5.
Bailey R, Hillman C, Arent S, Petitpas A. Physical activity: an underestimated investment in human capital? J Phys Act Health. 2013;10:289–308.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Kohl HW, Craig CL, Lambert EV, Inoue S, Alkandari JR, Leetongin G, et al. The pandemic of physical inactivity: global action for public health. Lancet. 2012;380:294–305.CrossRefPubMed
7.
8.
Ministry of Health Welfare and Sports. Gezondheid dichtbij. Landelijke nota gezondheidsbeleid [Health close to people. National policy act]. The Hague: Ministry of Health Welfare and Sports; 2011.
9.
Ministry of Health Welfare and Sports. Wet Maatschappelijke Ondersteuning (WMO) [Social Support Act]. The Hague: Ministry of Health Welfare and Sports; 2015.
10.
de Leeuw E. Engagement of sectors other than health in integrated health governance, policy, and action. Annu Rev Public Health. 2017;38:329–49.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Krech R, Buckett K. The Adelaide statement on health in all policies: moving towards a shared governance for health and well-being. Health Promot Int. 2010;25:258–60.CrossRef
12.
Storm I, Aarts M-J, Harting J, Schuit AJ. Opportunities to reduce health inequalities by ‘health in all policies’ in the Netherlands: an explorative study on the national level. Health Policy. 2011;103:130–40.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Koelen MA, Vaandrager L, Wagemakers A. The healthy alliances (HALL) framework: prerequisites for success. Fam Pract. 2012;29(Suppl.1):132–8.CrossRef
14.
Newman L, Baum F, Javanparast S, O’Rourke K, Carlon L. Addressing social determinants of health inequities through settings: a rapid review. Health Promot Int. 2015;30:ii126–43.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Leenaars KEF, Smit E, Wagemakers A, Molleman GRM, Koelen MA. Facilitators and barriers in the collaboration between the primary care and the sport sector in order to promote physical activity: a systematic literature review. Prev Med. 2015;81:460–78.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Council for Social Development (RMO). Verkenning participatie. Arbeid, vrijwillige inzet en mantelzorg in perspectief [Exploraton of participation, labour, volunteering and caregiving in perspective]. The Hague: Council for Social Development; 2008.
17.
Kawachi I, Berkman LF. Social cohesion, social capital, and health. In: Berman L, Kawachi I, editors. Social Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000. p. 174–90.
18.
Kahn EB, Ramsey LT, Brownson RC, Heath GW, Howze EH, Powell KE, et al. The effectiveness of interventions to increase physical activity: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2010;22:73–107.CrossRef
19.
Wagemakers A, Vaandrager L, Koelen MA, Saan H, Leeuwis C. Community health promotion: a framework to facilitate and evaluate supportive social environments for health. Eval Program Plann. 2010;33:428–35.CrossRefPubMed
20.
World Health Organization. Towards a common language for functioning, disability and health ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2002.
21.
Gregg J, O’Hara L. Values and principles evident in current health promotion practice. Heal Promot J Aust. 2007;18:7–11.CrossRef
22.
World Health Organisation. The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1986.
23.
Herens M, Wagemakers A, Vaandrager L, Koelen M. Exploring participant appreciation of group-based principles for action in community-based physical activity programs for socially vulnerable groups in the Netherlands. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:1173.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Sallis JF, Cervero RB, Ascher W, Henderson KA, Kraft MK, Kerr J. An ecological approach to ceating active living communities. Annu Rev Public Health. 2006;27:297–322.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Laverack G. Improving health outcomes through community empowerment: a review of the literature. J Health Popul Nutr. 2006;24:113–20.PubMed
26.
Hyyppa M, Maki J. Social participation and health in a community rich in stock of social capital. Health Educ Res. 2003;18:770–9.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Lindström M, Hanson BS, Ostergren PO. Socioeconomic differences in leisure-time physical activity: the role of social participation and social capital in shaping health related behaviour. Soc Sci Med. 2001;52:441–51.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Rootman I, O’Neill M. Key concepts in health promotion. In: Rootman I, Pederson A, Frohlich K, Dupéré S, editors. Health promotion in Canada: critical perspectives on practice. Canadian S. Toronto; 2012. p. 18–32.
29.
De Goeij M, Kunst A, Stronks K. De werkzaamheid van lokaal-integraal beleid. Overzicht van de vragen uit de praktijk, de antwoorden in de literatuur en de kansen voor verder onderzoek [The efficacy of integral policy on the local level. Summary of questions from practice, the answers in the literature and the opportunities for further research]. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam; 2015.
30.
Morris SA, Devlin N, Parkin D, Spencer A. Economic Analysis in Healthcare. Chicester: Wiley; 2007.
31.
Herens MC, van Ophem JAC, Wagemakers MAE, Koelen MA. Predictors of willingness to pay for physical activity of socially vulnerable groups in community-based programs. Springerplus. 2015;4:527.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
33.
Orszag PR, Ellis P. The challenge of rising health care costs. A view from the congressional budget office. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:1793–5.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Porter ME, Teisberg EO. Redefining health care. Boston: Harvard Business School Press; 2006.
35.
Quak S, Heilbron J, Meijer J. Primaire preventie van chronische ziekten: obstakels, stand van zaken en perspectieven [Prevention of non-communicable diseases: impedements, current situation and prospects]. TSG. 2016;94:34–40.CrossRef
36.
Reason P, Bradbury H. Handbook of action research: the concise paperback edition. London: Sage Publications, Inc.; 2008.CrossRef
37.
van Bon-Martens M, van de Goor L, Holsappel J, Kuunders T, Jacobs-van der Bruggen M, te Brake J, et al. Concept mapping as a promising method to bring practice into science. Public Health 2014;128:504–514.
38.
Van Koperen TM, Jebb SA, Summerbell CD, Visscher TLS, Romon M, Borys JM, et al. Characterizing the EPODE logic model: unravelling the past and informing the future. Obes Rev. 2013;14:162–70.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Leenaars KEF, van der Velden-Bollemaat EC, Smit E, Wagemakers A, GRM M, Koelen MA. The operational context of care sport connectors in the Netherlands. Health Promot Int. 2017;
40.
41.
Sheridan J, Chamberlain K, Dupuis A. Timelining: visualizing experience. Qual Res. 2011;11:552–69.CrossRef
42.
Yin RK. Case study research. Design and methods. Third edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.; 2003.
43.
44.
Jolley G. Evaluating complex community-based health promotion: addressing the challenges. Eval Progr Plan. 2014;45:71–81.CrossRef
45.
McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A, Glanz K. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Q. 1988;15:351–77.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Pawson R, Tilley N. Realistic Evaluation. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1997.
47.
Birckmayer JD, Weiss CH. Theory-based evaluation in practice: what do we learn? Eval Rev. 2000;24:407–31.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Brouwer A, van der Ploeg B. Gezond in de Stad Veenendaal 2011–2018 [Health in the city Veenendaal 2011–2018]. Veenendaal: Sport Service Veenendaal; 2015.
49.
50.
Municipality Arnhem. Sportvisie. Arnhemse visie op sport & bewegen [sport vision. Arnhems’ vision on sport & physical activity]. Arnhem: Municipality Arnhem; 2011.
51.
Municipality Arnhem. Wijkaanpak nieuwe stijl. Voor en door alle wijken in Arnhem [New Neighbourhood approach. For and by all neighbourhoods in Arnhem]. Arnhem: Municipality Arnhem. p. 2013.
52.
Municipality Veenendaal. Nota Lokaal Gezondheidsbeleid 2014-2017 [Report local health policy 2014–2017]. Veenendaal; 2014.
53.
Mulderij L, Wagemakers A, van Ravenhorst C, Verkooijen K, Groenewoud S, Koelen M. Care-PA initiatives in the neighbourhood: the first results of X-Fittt 2.0. Zagreb: 8th Conference of HEPA Europe; 2017.
54.
Donoghue WC. How to measure your % bodyfat. An instruction manual for measuring % body fat using skinfold calipers. 33th ed. Michigan: Creative Health Products; 2010.
55.
Astrand P, Ryhming I. A nomogram for calculation of aerobic capacity (physical fitness) from pulse rate during sub-maximal work. J Appl Physiol. 1954;7:218–21.CrossRefPubMed
56.
van Reenen M, Oppe M. EQ-5D-3L user guide: basic information on how to use the EQ-5D-3L instrument. EuroQol Res Found. 2015;22
57.
Movisie. Het participatiewiel [The participation wheel]. Utrecht: Movisie; 2015.
58.
Wagemakers A, Corstjens R, Koelen M, Vaandrager L, Van’t Riet H, Dijkshoorn H. Participatory approaches to promote healthy lifestyles among Turkish and Moroccan women in Amsterdam. Promot Educ. 2008;15:17–23.CrossRefPubMed
59.
Wagemakers A, van Husen G, Barrett JB, Koelen MA. Amsterdam’s STI/HIV programme: an innovative strategy to achieve and enhance the participation of migrant community-based organisations. Health Educ J. 2014;74:411–23.CrossRef
60.
Levasseur M, Richard L, Gauvin L, Raymond É. Inventory and analysis of definitions of social participation found in the aging literature: proposed taxonomy of social activities. Soc Sci Med. 2010;71:2141–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
61.
Post MW, van der Zee CH, Hennink J, Schafrat CG, Visser-Meily JM, van Berlekom SB. Validity of the Utrecht scale for evaluation of rehabilitation-participation. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34:478–85.CrossRefPubMed
62.
van der Zee CH, Kap A, Mishre RR, Schouten EJ, Post MW. Responsiveness of four participation measures to changes during and after outpatient rehabilitation. J Rehabil Med. 2011;43:1003–9.CrossRefPubMed
63.
van der Zee CH, Baars-Elsinga A, Visser-Meily JM, Post MW. Responsiveness of two participation measures in an outpatient rehabilitation setting. Scand J Occup Ther. 2013;20:201–8.CrossRefPubMed
64.
Browne W, Golalizadeh Lahi L, Parker R. A guide to sample size calculations for random effect models via simulation and the MLPowSim software package: University of Bristol; 2009.
65.
66.
de Vries H, Mesters I, van de Steeg H, Honing C. The general public’s information needs and perceptions regarding hereditary cancer: an application of the integrated change model. Patient Educ Couns. 2005;56:154–65.CrossRef
67.
68.
Wartna J, Vaandrager L, Wagemakers A, Koelen M. ‘Er is geen enkel werkzaam principe dat altijd werkt’ Een eerste verkenning van het begrip werkzame principes [there is not a singel effective principle that always works. An initial exploration of the term effective principles]. Wageningen: Health & Society, Wageningen University & Research; 2012.
69.
Kok MO, Vaandrager L, Bal R, Schuit J. Practitioner opinions on health promotion interventions that work: opening the ‘black box’ of a linear evidence-based approach. Soc Sci Med. 2012;74:715–23.CrossRefPubMed
70.
Groenewoud S, van Exel N, Berg M, Huijsman R. Building quality report cards for geriatric care in the Netherlands: using concept mapping to identify the appropriate ‘building blocks’ from the consumer’s perspective. Gerontologist. 2008;48:79–92.CrossRefPubMed
71.
Meyer A-M, Davis M, Mays GP. Defining organizational capacity for public health services and systems research. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2012;18:535–44.CrossRefPubMed
72.
Aluttis C, van den Broucke S, Chiotan C, Costongs C, Michelsen K, Brand H. Public health and health promotion capacity at national and regional level: a review of conceptual frameworks. J Public Health Res. 2014;3:37–42.CrossRef
73.
Bagley P, Lin V. The development and pilot testing of a rapid assessment tool to improve local public health system capacity in Australia. BMC Public Health. 2009;9:413.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
74.
Versteegh M, Knies S, Brouwer W. From good to better: new Dutch guidelines for economic evaluations in healthcare. PharmacoEconomics. 2016;34:1071–4.CrossRefPubMed
75.
Deutem J. Gebruikershandleiding EffectenArena [User guideline Effect Arena]. Hilversum: Aedes, SEV; 2009.
76.
Herens M, Wagemakers A, Vaandrager L, van Ophem J, Koelen M. Contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes that matter in Dutch community-based physical activity programs targeting socially vulnerable groups. Eval Health Prof. 2017;40:294–331.CrossRefPubMed
77.
Osuwu-Addo E, Edusah S, Sarfo-Mensah P. The utility of stakeholder involvement in the evaluation of community-based health promotion programmes. Int J Heal Promot Educ. 2015;53:291–302.CrossRef
78.
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans. Geneva: Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences; 2016.
Metadata
Title
Care–physical activity initiatives in the neighbourhood: study protocol for mixed-methods research on participation, effective elements, impact, and funding methods
Authors
Annemarie Wagemakers
Lisanne S. Mulderij
Kirsten T. Verkooijen
Stef Groenewoud
Maria A. Koelen
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5715-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Public Health 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research article

Volunteering and health benefits in general adults: cumulative effects and forms

Research article

Implementation of health promotion programmes in schools: an approach to understand the influence of contextual factors on the process?

Research article

The effect of HIV educational interventions on HIV-related knowledge, condom use, and HIV incidence in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Research article

Mortality trends for ischemic heart disease in China: an analysis of 102 continuous disease surveillance points from 1991 to 2009

Research article

Cost-effectiveness of a blended physiotherapy intervention compared to usual physiotherapy in patients with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis: a cluster randomized controlled trial

Correction

Correction: expanded HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) implementation in communities in new South Wales, Australia (EPIC-NSW): design of an open label, single arm implementation trial