Promoting Mental Health, Physical Activity, and Healthy and Sustainable Dietary Behavior Among Practical Education Students in the Netherlands: Protocol for a Multiphase Participatory Research Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: While a healthy lifestyle at a young age benefits youth now and later in life, not all youth have equal access to resources and support for adopting a healthy lifestyle. Most youth health promotion programs target the general adolescent population without addressing underlying equity issues. Similarly, participatory research, a promising methodology for the development of health promotion programs and addressing health equity, leaves youth in more vulnerable positions, often underrepresented. This research addresses these gaps by focusing on participatory research for health promotion program design with youth in practical education (praktijkonderwijs). OBJECTIVE: This research has two objectives: (1) to gain insight into how to meaningfully involve youth in vulnerable positions in participatory research for health promotion by focusing on practical education students as a case study, and (2) to gain insight into possible outputs and outcomes of the developed health promotion programs. METHODS: The research in this protocol is part of the LIFTS (Healthy Lifestyle for Low-Literate Teenagers) project, which aims to promote a healthy lifestyle for practical education students using a participatory approach. The current research uses a multiphase mixed methods research design consisting of 3 studies. Regarding the first objective, we conduct a systematic literature review (study 1) and an empirical qualitative study at practical education schools (study 2). The systematic literature review examines current knowledge on empowering approaches to engage practical education students and similar youth groups as coresearchers in health promotion program design and implementation. The qualitative study explores if and how practical education students can meaningfully be engaged as coresearchers in participatory research for health promotion program design. In line with participatory research, we developed research methods in collaboration with practical education schools and relevant LIFTS stakeholders. Regarding the second objective, we will conduct a realist evaluation of the newly designed health promotion programs within LIFTS (study 3). RESULTS: On April 11, 2025, the protocol for the systematic literature review (study 1) was ready and submitted to PROSPERO. In September 2025, we finished the data collection and analysis of the empirical qualitative study (study 2) and wrote the results. The realist evaluation (study 3) is foreseen for 2026. CONCLUSIONS: This research contributes to the advancement of academic knowledge in the field of health promotion and participatory research with youth in vulnerable positions. We expect to deliver practical recommendations and lessons learned on how to actualize youth empowerment in participatory research for health promotion, which may inspire future researchers. Additionally, we seek to promote health equity in the Netherlands by contributing to the development and implementation of tailored health promotion programs for practical education students. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/84723.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,094 | 0,065 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,047 | 0,009 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».