BACKGROUND The introduction of efficacious physical activity interventions in primary health care is a complex process. Understanding factors influencing the process can enhance the development of... Show moreBACKGROUND The introduction of efficacious physical activity interventions in primary health care is a complex process. Understanding factors influencing the process can enhance the development of effective introduction strategies. This Delphi study aimed to identify factors most relevant for the adoption, implementation, and continuation of physical activity interventions in primary health care by examining experts' opinions on the importance and changeability of factors previously identified as potentially relevant for the process. METHODS In the first round, 44 experts scored factors on their importance for each stage of the introduction process, as well as on their changeability. In the second round, the same experts received a questionnaire containing a reduced list of factors, based on the first-round results. They were asked to indicate their top-10 most important factors for each stage, and to re-rate factors' changeability. Thirty-seven experts completed this round. RESULTS Most important factors could be identified for each stage. Some factors were found important for a specific stage, e.g., the presence of intervention champions within the organization (adoption), provider knowledge (implementation), and the intervention's sustainability (continuation), while others were perceived important for all stages, i.e., the intervention's financial feasibility, the intervention's accessibility to the target group, and time to deliver the intervention. The majority of most important factors was perceived changeable. However, for some factors no consensus could be reached regarding their changeability. CONCLUSIONS This study identified general and stage-specific factors relevant for the introduction of physical activity interventions in primary health care. It emphasizes the importance of taking these factors into account when designing introduction strategies, and of giving special attention to the distinct stages of the process. Due to lack of consensus on the changeability of most important factors, the extent to which these factors can be influenced by introduction strategies remains unclear. Show less
UNLABELLED Screening of biomarker expression levels in tumor biopsy samples not only provides an assessment of prognostic and predictive factors, but may also be used for selection of biomarker... Show moreUNLABELLED Screening of biomarker expression levels in tumor biopsy samples not only provides an assessment of prognostic and predictive factors, but may also be used for selection of biomarker-specific imaging strategies. To assess the feasibility of using a biopsy specimen for a personalized selection of an imaging agent, the chemokine receptor 4 (CXCR4) was used as a reference biomarker. METHODS A hybrid CXCR4 targeting peptide (MSAP-Ac-TZ14011) containing a fluorescent dye and a chelate for radioactive labeling was used to directly compare initial flow cytometry-based target validation in fresh tumor tissue to in vivo single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging and in vivo and ex vivo fluorescence imaging. RESULTS Flow cytometric analysis of mouse tumor derived cell suspensions enabled discrimination between 4T1 control tumor lesions (with low levels of CXCR4 expression) and CXCR4 positive early, intermediate and late stage MIN-O lesions based on their CXCR4 expression levels; CXCR4(basal), CXCR4(+) and CXCR4(++) cell populations could be accurately discriminated. Mean fluorescent intensity ratios between expression in MIN-O and 4T1 tissue found with flow cytometry were comparable to ratios obtained with in vivo SPECT/CT and fluorescence imaging, ex vivo fluorescence evaluation and standard immunohistochemistry. CONCLUSION The hybrid nature of a targeting imaging agent like MSAP-Ac-TZ14011 enables integration of target selection, in vivo imaging and ex vivo validation using a single agent. The use of biopsy tissue for biomarker screening can readily be expanded to other targeting hybrid imaging agents and can possibly help increase the clinical applicability of tumor-specific imaging approaches. Show less