Preferences of Women in Difficult Life Situations for a Physical Activity Programme: Protocol of a Discrete Choice Experiment in the German NU-BIG Project

Overview

Journal BMJ Open

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2023 Jul 17

PMID 37460258

Authors

Sara Pedron

Annika Herbert-Maul

Alexandra Sauter

Stephanie Linder

Raluca Sommer

Markus Vomhof

Veronika Gontscharuk

Karim Abu-Omar

Ansgar Thiel

Heiko Ziemainz

Rolf Holle

Michael Laxy

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction: The BIG project ('Bewegung als Investition in die Gesundheit', ie, 'Movement as Investment in Health') was developed in 2005 as a community-based participatory research programme to offer accessible opportunities for physical activity to women in difficult life situations. Since then, the programme has been expanded to eight sites in Germany. A systematic evaluation of BIG is currently being conducted. As part of this effort, we strive to understand the preferences of participating women for different aspects of the programme, and to analyse their willingness to pay.

Methods And Analysis: In this protocol, we describe the development and analysis plan of a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to investigate participants' preferences for a physical activity programme for women in difficult life situations. The experiment will be embedded in a questionnaire covering several aspects of participation in the programme (eg, reach, efficacy and further effects) and the socioeconomic characteristics of all active participants. After a thorough search of the literature, BIG documents review and expert interviews, we identified five important attributes of the programme: course times, travel time to the course venue, additional social activities organised by BIG, consideration of wishes and interests for the further planning of courses and costs per course unit. Thereafter, we piloted the experiment with a sample of participants from the target group. After data collection, the experiment will be analysed using a conditional logit model and a latent class analysis to assess eventual heterogeneity in preferences.

Ethics And Dissemination: Understanding women's preferences will provide useful insights for the further development of the programme and ultimately increase participation and retention. The questionnaire, the included DCE and the pretest on participants received ethical approval (application no. 20-247_1-B). We plan to disseminate the results of the DCE in peer-reviewed journals, national conferences and among participants and programme coordinators and organisers.

Citing Articles

Discrete Choice Experiment in Evaluating Preferences for Physical Activity: A Mixed-Methods Study of Attributes and Their Levels.

Veisi M, Daroudi R, Kordi R, Akbari Sari A Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2025; 38:125.

PMID: 39968477 PMC: 11835406. DOI: 10.47176/mjiri.38.125.

References

Hauber A, Gonzalez J, Groothuis-Oudshoorn C, Prior T, Marshall D, Cunningham C . Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments: A Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016; 19(4):300-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004. View

Lancsar E, Louviere J . Conducting discrete choice experiments to inform healthcare decision making: a user's guide. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008; 26(8):661-77. DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200826080-00004. View

Hoebel J, Finger J, Kuntz B, Kroll L, Manz K, Lange C . Changing educational inequalities in sporting inactivity among adults in Germany: a trend study from 2003 to 2012. BMC Public Health. 2017; 17(1):547. PMC: 5461755. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-017-4478-2. View

Withall J, Jago R, Fox K . Why some do but most don't. Barriers and enablers to engaging low-income groups in physical activity programmes: a mixed methods study. BMC Public Health. 2011; 11:507. PMC: 3141466. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-507. View

Rutten A, Schow D, Breda J, Galea G, Kahlmeier S, Oppert J . Three types of scientific evidence to inform physical activity policy: results from a comparative scoping review. Int J Public Health. 2016; 61(5):553-63. PMC: 4947117. DOI: 10.1007/s00038-016-0807-y. View

Rutten A, Roger U, Abu-Omar K, Frahsa A . [Empowerment of women in difficult life situations: the BIG project]. Gesundheitswesen. 2008; 70(12):742-7. DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1103262. View

Bech M, Gyrd-Hansen D . Effects coding in discrete choice experiments. Health Econ. 2005; 14(10):1079-83. DOI: 10.1002/hec.984. View

Lancsar E, Savage E . Deriving welfare measures from discrete choice experiments: inconsistency between current methods and random utility and welfare theory. Health Econ. 2004; 13(9):901-7. DOI: 10.1002/hec.870. View

Bhatnagar P, Foster C, Shaw A . Barriers and facilitators to physical activity in second-generation British Indian women: A qualitative study. PLoS One. 2021; 16(11):e0259248. PMC: 8565737. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259248. View

10.

Rutter H, Bes-Rastrollo M, de Henauw S, Lahti-Koski M, Lehtinen-Jacks S, Mullerova D . Balancing Upstream and Downstream Measures to Tackle the Obesity Epidemic: A Position Statement from the European Association for the Study of Obesity. Obes Facts. 2017; 10(1):61-63. PMC: 5644948. DOI: 10.1159/000455960. View

11.

Rutten A, Gelius P . Building policy capacities: an interactive approach for linking knowledge to action in health promotion. Health Promot Int. 2013; 29(3):569-82. DOI: 10.1093/heapro/dat006. View

12.

Gelius P, Jansen M, King A . Cooperative planning and its utilization in German physical activity promotion: a brief introduction. Health Promot Int. 2021; 36(Supplement_2):ii1-ii7. PMC: 8670624. DOI: 10.1093/heapro/daab170. View

13.

Drennan J . Cognitive interviewing: verbal data in the design and pretesting of questionnaires. J Adv Nurs. 2003; 42(1):57-63. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02579.x. View

14.

Haldane V, Chuah F, Srivastava A, Singh S, Koh G, Kee Seng C . Community participation in health services development, implementation, and evaluation: A systematic review of empowerment, health, community, and process outcomes. PLoS One. 2019; 14(5):e0216112. PMC: 6510456. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216112. View

15.

Bridges J, Hauber A, Marshall D, Lloyd A, Prosser L, Regier D . Conjoint analysis applications in health--a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011; 14(4):403-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013. View

16.

OMara-Eves A, Brunton G, Oliver S, Kavanagh J, Jamal F, Thomas J . The effectiveness of community engagement in public health interventions for disadvantaged groups: a meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2015; 15:129. PMC: 4374501. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-015-1352-y. View

17.

Ben-Shlomo Y, Kuh D . A life course approach to chronic disease epidemiology: conceptual models, empirical challenges and interdisciplinary perspectives. Int J Epidemiol. 2002; 31(2):285-93. View

18.

Sanz-Remacha M, Garcia-Gonzalez L, Sevil Serrano J, Aibar Solana A . A Qualitative Evaluation of a Community-Based Intervention on Health-Related Behaviors in Disadvantaged Women. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2022; 94(1):272-282. DOI: 10.1080/02701367.2021.1971149. View

19.

Leung M, Yen I, Minkler M . Community based participatory research: a promising approach for increasing epidemiology's relevance in the 21st century. Int J Epidemiol. 2004; 33(3):499-506. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyh010. View

20.

Reed Johnson F, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Muhlbacher A, Regier D . Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013; 16(1):3-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223. View