Key performance indicators of cooperative planning processes. Case study results from German sport science and physical activity promotion projects.

Autor/inn/en	Sommer, Raluca M.; Linder, Stephanie; Ziemainz, Heiko; Gelius, Peter C.
Titel	Key performance indicators of cooperative planning processes. Case study results from German sport science and physical activity promotion projects. Gefälligkeitsübersetzung: Schlüsselindikatoren für kooperative Planungsprozesse. Fallstudienergebnisse aus deutschen sportwissenschaftlichen und bewegungsfördernden Projekten in Deutschland.
Quelle	In: German journal of exercise and sport research, 52 (2022) 1, S. 24-38 PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Link als defekt meldenVerfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	online; gedruckt; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	2509-3142; 2509-3150
DOI	10.1007/s12662-021-00745-3
Schlagwörter	Empirische Forschung; Forschung; Planung; Motivation; Projekt; Gesundheit; Gesundheitsförderung; Bewegungsaktivität; Bewegungsverhalten; Sportpädagogik; Sportsoziologie; Kooperation; Deutschland-BRD
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. (Autor).
Erfasst von	Bundesinstitut für Sportwissenschaft, Bonn
Update	2022/3