Objectives: Promoting unstructured outside play is a promising vehicle to increase children’s physical activity (PA). This study investigates if factors of the social environment moderate the relationship between the perceived physical environment and outside play. Study design: 1875 parents from the KOALA Birth Cohort Study reported on their child’s outside play around age five years, and 1516 parents around age seven years. Linear mixed model analyses were performed to evaluate (moderating) relationships among factors of the social environment (parenting influences and social capital), the perceived physical environment, and outside play at age five and seven. Season was entered as a random factor in these analyses. Results: Accessibility of PA facilities, positive parental attitude towards PA and social capital were associated with more outside play, while parental concern and restriction of screen time were related with less outside play. We found two significant interactions; both involving parent perceived responsibility towards child PA participation. Conclusion: Although we found a limited number of interactions, this study demonstrated that the impact of the perceived physical environment may differ across levels of parent responsibility.
MULTIFILE
BackgroundThe challenge of combining professional work and breastfeeding is a key reason why women choose not to breastfeed or to stop breastfeeding early. We posited that having access to a high-quality lactation room at the workplace could influence working mothers’ satisfaction and perceptions related to expressing breast milk at work, which could have important longer term consequences for the duration of breastfeeding. Specifically, we aimed to (1) develop a checklist for assessing the quality of lactation rooms and (2) explore how lactation room quality affects lactating mothers’ satisfaction and perceptions. Drawing on social ecological insights, we hypothesized that the quality of lactation rooms (operationalized as any space used for expressing milk at work) would be positively related to mothers’ satisfaction with the room, perceived ease of, and perceived support for milk expression at work.MethodsWe conducted two studies. In Study 1 we developed a lactation room quality checklist (LRQC) and assessed its reliability twice, using samples of 33 lactation rooms (Study 1a) and 31 lactation rooms (Study 1b). Data were collected in the Northern part of the Netherlands (between December 2016 and April 2017). Study 2 comprised a cross-sectional survey of 511 lactating mothers, working in a variety of Dutch organizations. The mothers were recruited through the Facebook page of a popular Dutch breastfeeding website. They completed online questionnaires containing the LRQC and measures aimed at assessing their satisfaction and perceptions related to milk expression at work (in June and July 2017).ResultsThe LRQC was deemed reliable and easy to apply in practice. As predicted, we found that objectively assessed higher-quality lactation rooms were associated with increased levels of satisfaction with the lactation rooms, perceived ease of milk expression at work, and perceived support from supervisors and co-workers for expressing milk in the workplace.ConclusionsThe availability of a high-quality lactation room could influence mothers’ decisions regarding breast milk expression at work and the commencement and/or continuation of breastfeeding. Future studies should explore whether and how lactation room quality affects breastfeeding choices, and which aspects are most important to include in lactation rooms.
Objective : The first aim of this study was to determine whether adolescents with asymptomatic Generalized Joint Hypermobility (GJH) have a lower level of physical functioning (physical activity level, muscle strength and performance) compared to non-hypermobile controls. Secondly, to evaluate whether the negative impact of perceived harmfulness on physical functioning was more pronounced in adolescents with asymptomatic GJH. Methods : Cross-sectional study. Sixty-two healthy adolescents (mean age 16.8, range 12-21) participated. Hypermobility (Beighton score), perceived harmfulness (PHODA-youth) and muscle strength (dynamometry), motor performance (Single-Leg-Hop-for-Distance) and physical activity level (PAL) (accelerometry) were measured. Hierarchical regression analyses were used to study differences in physical functioning and perceived harmfulness between asymptomatic GJH and non-hypermobile controls. Results : Asymptomatic GJH was associated with increased knee extensor muscle strength (peak torque/body weight; PT/BW), controlled for age and gender (dominant leg; ß = 0.29; p = .02). No other associations between asymptomatic GJH and muscle strength, motor performance and PAL were found. Perceived harmfulness was not more pronounced in adolescents with asymptomatic GJH. Conclusions : Adolescents with asymptomatic GJH had increased knee extensor muscle strength compared to non-hypermobile controls. No other differences in the level of physical functioning was found and the negative impact of perceived harmfulness was not more pronounced in adolescents with asymptomatic GJH.
De afgelopen twee decennia is er veel meer aandacht ontstaan bij onderzoekers en beleidsmakers voor het begrip co-creatie. Bijna altijd wordt de rol van co-creatie als positief en essentieel gezien in een proces waarin maatschappelijke of publieke uitdagingen worden onderzocht en opgelost (zogenaamde sociale innovatie). Het meeste onderzoek naar deze twee begrippen is kwalitatief van aard en gebaseerd op ‘case studies’.In zijn promotieonderzoek kijkt Peter Broekema naar de rol van co-creatie binnen sociale innovatie in Europese samenwerkingsprojecten. In zijn eerste artikel heeft hij de begrippen co-creatie en sociale innovatie tussen 1995 en 2018 binnen de EU geanalyseerd en geconcludeerd dat beide begrippen steeds breder gebruikt worden en samen met het begrip impact zijn getransformeerd tot een beleidsparadigma.In het tweede artikel keek Peter Broekema hoe beide begrippen doorwerken in specifieke subsidieoproepen en hoe consortia deze begrippen toepassen en samenwerken. Hierbij bleek dat er weliswaar verschillende typen consortia bestaan, maar dat zij geen specifieke co-creatiestrategie hadden.In zijn laatste twee artikelen zal hij gedetailleerd kijken naar een aantal EU projecten en vaststellen hoe de samenwerking is verlopen en hoe tevreden de verschillende partners zijn met het resultaat. Peter Broekema maakt hiervoor gebruik van projecten waarin hij zelf participeert (ACCOMPLISSH, INEDIT en SHIINE).EU beleidsparadigma van sociale innovatie in combinatie met co-creatie en impact. Co-creatie vindt vaak binnen eigen type stakehodlers plaatsAbstractSocial innovation and co-creation are both relatively new concepts, that have been studied by scholars for roughly twenty years and are still heavily contested. The former emerged as a response to the more technologically focused concept of innovation and the latter originally solely described the collaboration of end-users in the development of new products, processes or services. Between 2010-2015, both concepts have been adapted and started to be used more widely by for example EU policymakers in their effort to tackle so called ‘grand societal challenges’. Within this narrative – which could be called co-creation for social innovation, it is almost a prerequisite that partners – especially citizens - from different backgrounds and sectors actively work together towards specific societal challenges. Relevance and aimHowever, the exact contribution of co-creation to social innovation projects is still unclear. Most research on co-creation has been focussing on the involvement of end-users in the development of products, processes and services. In general, scholars conclude that the involvement of end-users is effective and leads to a higher level of customer satisfaction. Only recently, research into the involvement of citizens in social innovation projects has started to emerge. However, the majority of research on co-creation for social innovation has been focusing on collaborations between two types of partners in the quadruple helix (citizens, governments, enterprises and universities). Because of this, it is still unclear what co-creation in social innovation projects with more different type of partners entails exactly. More importantly however, is that most research has been based on national case studies in which partners from different sectors collaborate in a familiar ‘national’ setting. Normally institutional and/or cultural contexts influence co-creation (for example the ‘poldermodel’in the Netherlands or the more confrontational model in France), so by looking at projects in a central EU and different local contexts it becomes clear how context effects co-creation for social innovation.Therefore this project will analyse a number of international co-creation projects that aim for social innovation with different types of stakeholders in a European and multi-stakeholder setting.With this research we will find out what people in different contexts believe is co-creation and social innovation, how this process works in different contexts and how co-creation contributes to social innovation.Research question and - sub questionsThe project will answer the following question: “What is the added value of co-creation in European funded collaboration projects that aim for social innovation?” To answer the main question, the research has been subdivided into four sub questions:1) What is the assumed added value of co-creation for social innovation?2) How is the added value of co-creation for social innovation being expressed ex ante and ex post in EU projects that aim specifically for social innovation by co-creation?3) How do partners and stakeholders envision the co-creation process beforehand and continuously shape this process in EU projects to maximise social innovation?4) How do partners and stakeholders regard the added value of co-creation for social innovation in EU projects that that aim for social innovation?Key conceptsThe research will focus on the interplay between the two main concepts a) co-creation and b) social innovation. For now, we are using the following working definitions:a) co-creation is a non-linear process that involves multiple actors and stakeholders in the ideation, implementation and assessment of products, services, policies and systems with the aim of improving their efficiency and effectiveness, and the satisfaction of those who take part in the process.b) social innovation is the invention, development and implementation of new ideas with the purpose to (immediately) relieve and (eventually) solve social problems, which are in the long run directed at the social inclusion of individuals, groups or communities.It is clear that both definitions are quite opaque, but also distinguish roughly the same phases (ideation/invention, development, implementation and assessment) and also distinguish different levels (products/services, policies and systems). Both concepts will be studied within the policy framework of the EU, in which a specific value to both concepts has been attributed, mostly because policymakers regard co-creation with universities and end-users almost as a prerequisite for social innovation. Based on preliminary research, EU policies seem to define social innovation in close reation with ‘societal impact’, which could defined as: “the long lasting effect of an activity on society, because it is aimed at solving social problems”, and therefore in this specific context social innovation seems to encompasses societal impact. For now, I will use this working definition of social innovation and will closely look at the entanglement with impact in the first outlined paper.MethodologyIn general, I will use a qualitative mixed method approach and grounded theory to answer the main research question (mRQ). In order to better understand the added value of co-creation for social innovation in an EU policy setting, the research will:SubRQ1) start with an analysis of academic literature on co-creation and social impact. This analysis will be followed by and confronted with an analysis of EU policy documents. SubRQ2) use a qualitative data analysis at nineteen EU funded projects to understand how co-creation is envisoned within social innovation projects by using the quintuple helix approach (knowledge flows between partners and stakeholders in an EU setting) and the proposed social innovation journey model. By contrasting the findings from the QDA phase of the project with other research on social innovation we will be able to find arachetypes of social innovation in relation with the (perceived) added value of co-creation within social innovation. SubRQ3) These archetypes will be used to understand the process of co-creation for social innovation by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.SubRQ4) The archetypes will also be used to understand the perceived added value by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.ImpactThe project will contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between co-creation and social innovation on different levels:a) Theoretical: the research will analyse the concepts of co-creation and social innovation in relation to each other by looking at the origins of the concepts, the adaptation in different fields and the uptake within EU policies;b) Methodological: a model will be developed to study and understand the non-lineair process of co-creation within social innovation, by focusing on social innovation pathways and social innovation strategies within a quintuple helix setting (i) academia, ii) enterprises and iii) governments that work together to improve iv) society in an v) EU setting);c) Empirical: the project will (for the first time) collect data on behavioural interactions and the satisfaction levels of these interactions between stakeholders and partners in an EU project.d) Societal: the results of the research could be used to optimize the support for social innovation projects and also for the development of specific funding calls.
During the coronavirus pandemic, the use of eHealth tools became increasingly demanded by patients and encouraged by the Dutch government. Yet, HBO health professionals demand clarity on what they can do, must do, and cannot do with the patients’ data when using digital healthcare provision and support. They often perceive the EU GDPR and its national application as obstacles to the use of eHealth due to strict health data processing requirements. They highlight the difficulty of keeping up with the changing rules and understanding how to apply them. Dutch initiatives to clarify the eHealth rules include the 2021 proposal of the wet Elektronische Gegevensuitwisseling in de Zorg and the establishment of eHealth information and communication platforms for healthcare practitioners. The research explores whether these initiatives serve the needs of HBO health professionals. The following questions will be explored: - Do the currently applicable rules and the proposed wet Elektronische Gegevensuitwisseling in de Zorg clarify what HBO health practitioners can do, must do, and cannot do with patients’ data? - Does the proposed wet Elektronische Gegevensuitwisseling in de Zorg provide better clarity on the stakeholders who may access patients’ data? Does it ensure appropriate safeguards against the unauthorized use of such data? - Does the proposed wet Elektronische Gegevensuitwisseling in de Zorg clarify the EU GDPR requirements for HBO health professionals? - Do the eHealth information and communication platforms set up for healthcare professionals provide the information that HBO professionals need on data protection and privacy requirements stemming from the EU GDPR and from national law? How could such platforms be better adjusted to the HBO professionals’ information and communication needs? Methodology: Practice-oriented legal research, semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions will be conducted. Results will be translated to solutions for HBO health professionals.
Psychosocial problems related to social isolation are a growing issue for wellbeing and health and have become a significant societal problem. This is especially relevant for children and adults with chronic illnesses and disabilities, and those spending extended periods in hospitals or permanently living in assisted living facilities. A lack of social relationships, social connectivity, and the inability to travel freely leads to feelings of isolation and loneliness. Loneliness interventions often use mediated environments to improve the feeling of connectedness. It has been proven that the utilization of haptic technologies enhances realism and the sense of presence in both virtual environments and telepresence in physical places by allowing the user to experience interaction through the sense of touch. However, the technology application is mostly limited to the experiences of serious games in professional environments and for-entertainment-gaming. This project aims to explore how haptic technologies can support the storytelling of semi-scripted experiences in VR to improve participants’ sense of presence and, therefore, the feeling of connectedness. By designing and prototyping the experience, the project aims to obtain insights and offer a better understanding of designing haptic-technology-supported storytelling and its potential to improve connectedness and become a useful tool in isolation interventions. The project will be conducted through the process of participants’ co-creation.
