Aim: This paper describes the design of the ‘Move More’ study, which aims to develop and assess the feasibility of a social-prescribing intervention to increase physical activity among physically inactive Danes. Background: Physical inactivity constitutes a public-health challenge in Denmark. Social prescribing may be a promising tool to tackle physical inactivity by linking physical activity support from general practitioners with community-based activities in sports clubs, as this may help physically inactive citizens become more physically active. Given the range of stakeholders and behaviours required for social prescribing of physical activity, an intervention that harnesses this approach may constitute a complex intervention. The methods and decisions made in the stages of developing complex interventions are seldom reported. The present study enabled us to describe how co-creation can be used in a pragmatic development process for a complex intervention that considers the needs of stakeholders and the conditions of the delivery context. Methods: The study is based on the core elements of the development and feasibility phases of the Medical Research Council Framework for Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions. Additionally, it is informed by a framework for the co-creation and prototyping of public-health interventions, drawing from a scoping review, stakeholder consultations and co-creation workshops. Ultimately, a feasibility study will be conducted to refine the programme theory by introducing the proposed intervention in case studies. Perspectives: The study will result in a prototype intervention manual and recommendations for implementation of an adapted social-prescribing intervention targeting physical inactivity in Denmark.

PurposeThe present paper describes the interplay between the “why” and “how” in co-production based on a case study of community-based healthcare in Denmark involving municipalities and voluntary sports clubs. So far, policy practice and research have focussed on the “why” – the rationales and pre-requisites – of co-production. However, there seems to be a lack of knowledge about the “how” of co-production in the interplay between professionals and volunteers. The paper asks how co-production is being perceived and practised according to existing norms and objectives of public healthcare and civil society, drawing on the theory of institutional logics.Design/methodology/approachThe paper uses a critical case study approach to examine the practice of co-production. The analysis builds on qualitative data from nine semi-structured interviews, two information interviews and project documents. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and coded.FindingsThis paper demonstrates that compatibility of institutional logics was not given, nor did the co-existence of potentially competing logics necessarily result in conflict in co-production. Instead, in this case study co-production emerged as highly contingent, reflecting the dynamic interaction between logics and context-specific management.Originality/valueThis paper makes an original contribution to the conceptual understanding of co-production in emphasising the benefit of paying attention to the network logic when building bridges between public healthcare and civil society – and to unite the seemingly contradictory “why” and “how” of co-production in practice.