Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/29292
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorDaykin, Normaen_UK
dc.contributor.authorMansfield, Louiseen_UK
dc.contributor.authorPayne, Annetteen_UK
dc.contributor.authorKay, Tessen_UK
dc.contributor.authorMeads, Catherineen_UK
dc.contributor.authorD'Innocenzo, Giorgiaen_UK
dc.contributor.authorBurnett, Adeleen_UK
dc.contributor.authorDolan, Paulen_UK
dc.contributor.authorJulier, Guyen_UK
dc.contributor.authorLongworth, Louiseen_UK
dc.contributor.authorTomlinson, Alanen_UK
dc.contributor.authorTestoni, Stefanoen_UK
dc.contributor.authorVictor, Christinaen_UK
dc.date.accessioned2019-04-11T00:08:29Z-
dc.date.available2019-04-11T00:08:29Z-
dc.date.issued2017-09-01en_UK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/29292-
dc.description.abstractAims: There is a growing recognition of the ways in which culture and sport can contribute to wellbeing. A strong evidence base is needed to support innovative service development and a 3-year research programme is being undertaken to capture best evidence of wellbeing impacts and outcomes of cultural and sporting activities in order to inform UK policy and practice. This article provides an overview of methods and findings from an initial coproduction process with key stakeholders that sought to explore and agree principles and parameters of the evidence review for culture, sport and wellbeing (CSW). Methods: A two-stage DELPHI process was conducted with a purposeful sample of 57 stakeholders between August and December 2015. Participants were drawn from a range of culture and sport organisations and included commissioners and managers, policy makers, representatives of service delivery organisations (SDOs) and scholars. The DELPHI 1 questionnaire was developed from extensive consultation in July and August 2015. It explored definitions of wellbeing, the role of evidence, quality assessment, and the culture and sport populations, settings and interventions that are most likely to deliver wellbeing outcomes. Following further consultation, the results, presented as a series of ranked statements, were sent back to participants (DELPHI 2), which allowed them to reflect on and, if they wished, express agreement or disagreement with the emerging consensus. Results: A total of 40 stakeholders (70.02%) responded to the DELPHI questionnaires. DELPHI 1 mapped areas of agreement and disagreement, confirmed in DELPHI 2. The exercise drew together the key priorities for the CSW evidence review. Conclusion: The DELPHI process, in combination with face-to-face deliberation, enabled stakeholders to engage in complex discussion and express nuanced priorities while also allowing the group to come to an overall consensus and agree outcomes. The results will inform the CSW evidence review programme until its completion in March 2018.en_UK
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.publisherSAGE Publicationsen_UK
dc.relationDaykin N, Mansfield L, Payne A, Kay T, Meads C, D'Innocenzo G, Burnett A, Dolan P, Julier G, Longworth L, Tomlinson A, Testoni S & Victor C (2017) What works for wellbeing in culture and sport? Report of a DELPHI process to support coproduction and establish principles and parameters of an evidence review. Perspectives in Public Health, 137 (5), pp. 281-288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1757913916674038en_UK
dc.rightsThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).en_UK
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/en_UK
dc.subjectcultureen_UK
dc.subjectsporten_UK
dc.subjectwellbeingen_UK
dc.subjectevidence reviewen_UK
dc.subjectcoproductionen_UK
dc.subjectDELPHIen_UK
dc.titleWhat works for wellbeing in culture and sport? Report of a DELPHI process to support coproduction and establish principles and parameters of an evidence reviewen_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/1757913916674038en_UK
dc.identifier.pmid27789779en_UK
dc.citation.jtitlePerspectives in Public Healthen_UK
dc.citation.issn1757-9147en_UK
dc.citation.issn1757-9139en_UK
dc.citation.volume137en_UK
dc.citation.issue5en_UK
dc.citation.spage281en_UK
dc.citation.epage288en_UK
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublisheden_UK
dc.citation.peerreviewedRefereeden_UK
dc.type.statusVoR - Version of Recorden_UK
dc.contributor.funderEconomic and Social Research Councilen_UK
dc.citation.date28/10/2016en_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Winchesteren_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationBrunel Universityen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationBrunel Universityen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationBrunel Universityen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationRAND Corporationen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationBrunel Universityen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationBrunel Universityen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationLondon School of Economicsen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Brightonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationBrunel Universityen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Brightonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationLondon School of Economicsen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationBrunel Universityen_UK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000408633900014en_UK
dc.identifier.scopusid2-s2.0-85028611145en_UK
dc.identifier.wtid1262058en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0001-6452-3247en_UK
dc.date.accepted2016-10-28en_UK
dcterms.dateAccepted2016-10-28en_UK
dc.date.filedepositdate2019-04-04en_UK
rioxxterms.apcnot requireden_UK
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_UK
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_UK
local.rioxx.authorDaykin, Norma|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorMansfield, Louise|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorPayne, Annette|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorKay, Tess|0000-0001-6452-3247en_UK
local.rioxx.authorMeads, Catherine|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorD'Innocenzo, Giorgia|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorBurnett, Adele|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorDolan, Paul|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorJulier, Guy|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorLongworth, Louise|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorTomlinson, Alan|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorTestoni, Stefano|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorVictor, Christina|en_UK
local.rioxx.projectProject ID unknown|Economic and Social Research Council|http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000269en_UK
local.rioxx.freetoreaddate2019-04-10en_UK
local.rioxx.licencehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/|2019-04-10|en_UK
local.rioxx.filenameDaykin et al-PPH-2017.pdfen_UK
local.rioxx.filecount1en_UK
local.rioxx.source1757-9139en_UK
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Daykin et al-PPH-2017.pdfFulltext - Published Version85.65 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is protected by original copyright



A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.