Capitalization of Health Promotion Initiatives within French Sports Clubs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript entitled “Capitalization of Health Promotion Initiatives Within French Sports Clubs”

 

I would like to thank the authors for the article. The subject is in very important field, as it might be that the focus in sport clubs may be or is already changing from "just" moving children and youth to more broader view of health promotion. Hence, the article is giving important information, what can be done in the sport clubs to promote health, also other health habits than physical activity. The introduction is very well written and shows that the authors know the field "health promotion in sport clubs" very well. 

While the study is giving us important information what are possible ways to promote health in sport clubs, I was reading the conclusions by waiting, what is the real practical implication. It was left to point zero, pointing that sport clubs could choose something from the list provided. Also no mention about the personnel or so, what should be done first, if a sport club wants to start health promotion from point zero. 

I also was hoping to get more information about the sport clubs, age groups, gender of participants, number of paid personnel and how much manager in the position was using his work duty to health promotion. 

 

Some smaller notes: 

Lines 85 - 87: “To be 85 included, sports clubs had to be affiliated to the French National Olympic and Sports Committee, 86 officiate at grassroots levels and implicate more than a single coach.” Why it was necessary that the club had to be affiliated to French National Olympic Committee?

 

Data analysis. Seems to be valid and very well done.

 

Line 301:” The diversity of sports clubs in regard to size, funding and type of sport (see Table I for details)” Where the funding is mentioned?

 

No analyze to the sport club size or type. Different sport provide different settings, e.g single sports versus team sports, is it easier or more difficult to provide health promotion in team sport? For example, sport club no 1 has done very much, while number 2 has not done that much. Difference is of course in the size, but at the same time small clubs like numbers 4 or 7 has done pretty much and in the different strategies have been used very well. 

 

References : I recommend to check these. It seems that there are lots of mistakes, e.g. journal names are either lower cases (e.g. 2, 23, 35, 36, 37) journal names are not abbreviated (e.g. 2, 3, 18, 22, 24, 25, 30, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41 ) Journal names is abbreviated in wrong way (e.g. 17) or the abbreviation is not similar (e.g. there is point or not, check which one is right way to do it; e.g. compare 13 & 14, ). And there are some other mistakes also (e.g. 9 TheValues)

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

To analyse how Sports Clubs use and facilitate Health Promotion is a relevant subject. Many sports clubs could benefit from helpful information concerning implementation of health promotion activities.

Even though this area of research is relevant, more work is needed in this paper to ensure focus of the study and a clear message to the reader and potentially receiving sports clubs.

The comments below follows the sections of the paper 

Introduction:

Page 1, Line 39-43: I need a stronger argumentation for the choice of the sports clubs a a relevant system

Page 2, Line 47: An explanation for the “Setting-based model” is needed. Explaination on why the setting-based model has been implemented in the sports Clubs are needed.

Page 2, line 64: What do the results from these qualitative studies show?

In general: More argumentation for why sports clubs should focus on Health Promotion at all is needed.

Research Aims:

Page 2, Line 66: Further argumentation on why knowledge from the development of HP intervention in sports clubs are needed.

Page 2, Line 66-67: Explanation of the “club intervention planning framework" is needed

 

Material and Methods:

Page 2, line 72-79: Further explanation of the “Experimental Knowledge in HP” is needed. Furthermore, a thorough explanation on how the different data collection methods will supplement each other is relevant.

Page 2, line 86-93: Further explanation of the selection criteria is needed

Page 2, Line 93: Drop-out information is needed. Do the eight sports clubs in the study deviate from the other 3 sports club originally selected as well?

Page 3, line 102: A further explanation of the documents analysis is needed. How were the information on the website? Did it explain the process of the HP intervention? Did these documents contain all relevant information?

Page 3, Line 109-112: An explanation of why only program managers were interviewed is needed. Other people in the sports clubs working with the implementation could have been relevant as well.

Page 3, line 113-119: More explanation of the development of the interview guides are needed. It is not evident which questions (and why) were asked and if any (and how) theoretical framework was used

Page 4, line 122 - 131 : How were the documents analyzed and coded?

 

Results:

Page 4, Table 2: An explanation of the table is needed. Why is it relevant to present data this way and how will it contribute to the overall answer of the research aims? The majority of the data is qualitative. How does the quantitative data contribute to the overall study?

In general, the combination of quantitative and qualitative data in the result section is confusing. A more stringent structure or focus is needed so it will be clearer for the reader which messages the authors are trying get through.

In the different sections in the result section a lot of different messages are presented. This is done in a rather superficial way and without any systematic approach. The messages from the different sections stands out as fragmented and incoherent.

This means that neither the quantitative nor the qualitative data provides the reader with any in dept knowledge or understanding of the different themes. It is recommended to rewrite these sections, so a clearer structure is evident and thereby ensure more debt to data. The quantitative and qualitative data could be divided to ensure more dept to data and then potentially be united in a compiles section I results and furthermore in the discussion

Some sections (e.g., Education, Feasibility, Partners) are were short whereas other are more elaborated. Could the authors discuss or explain if certain areas have been of more focus in the data collection and the analysis. Furthermore, not all sections contain quotes or qualitative data. Why this is the case should be explained.

Finally, a summary of messages from the results section is needed. Right now, all different kinds of messages are presented in different categories. A summary would be able to give an overview of relevant findings in relation to the research questions.

In dept knowledge and focus are needed to ensure a clear message of the paper

 

Discussion:

Page 8, Line 311-313: The authors conclude or discuss the fact that multi-stategy interventions are doable. This is not the focus of this study or at least not put forward in the results. If this has been a focus of the study, this should be much clearer in the purpose and the results.

Page 9, Line 325-328: I discussion on how data from the study supports that the HPSC intervention framework to analyze the data collected is needed. This data is not evident in the result section of this study.

Page 9, Line 333-355: This section is interesting. In this section the authors summarize some of their findings and provide the reader with an overview in regard to these areas. This would be relevant for the result section in regard to all findings. Then it would be much more evident for the reader what the main findings from the study were. It I recommended that such an elaborating section is written in the results section. Moreover, it is relevant to argue more thoroughly for the focus of the study in the introduction, the method section and the result section as well.

 

Conclusion:

Page 9, Line 365-366: The authors state that this study can aid sports clubs by capitalizing on the learned experiences from the successful HP interventions implemented. From the results presented and the themes discussed this is difficult to see. If this should be the case and recommendations for sports clubs should be possible the authors should have a narrower and in dept focus of the study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors has improved the manuscript and I have no further comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your thorough review of your paper.

I find it a relevant paper with relevant knowledge on how sport clubs can integrate health enhancing programs.

Your alterations to the manuscript have improved the understanding and the clarity and also  the messages to the reader.

It now stands as a more precise and informative but also more applicable to sport clubs wanting to implement health enhancing programs.