Dataset Information

Physically active academic lessons: acceptance, barriers and facilitators for implementation.

ABSTRACT: To improve health and academic learning in schoolchildren, the Active School programme in Stavanger, Norway has introduced physically active academic lessons. This is a teaching method combining physical activity with academic content. The purpose of this paper was to evaluate the response to the physically active lessons and identify facilitators and barriers for implementation of such an intervention.Five school leaders (principals or vice-principals), 13 teachers and 30 children from the five intervention schools were interviewed about their experiences with the 10-month intervention, which consisted of weekly minimum 2?×?45 minutes of physically active academic lessons, and the factors affecting its implementation. All interviews were transcribed and analysed using the qualitative data analysis program NVivo 10 (QSR international, London, UK). In addition, weekly teacher's intervention delivery logs were collected and analysed.On average, the physically active academic lessons in 18 of the 34 weeks (53%) were reported in the teacher logs. The number of delivered physically active academic lessons covered 73% of the schools' planned activity. Physically active lessons were well received among school leaders, teachers and children. The main facilitators for implementation of the physically active lessons were active leadership and teacher support, high self-efficacy regarding mastering the intervention, ease of organizing physically active lessons, inclusion of physically active lessons into the lesson curricula, and children's positive reception of the intervention. The main barriers were unclear expectations, lack of knowledge and time to plan the physiclly active lessons, and the length of the physically active lessons (15-20 min lessons were preferred over the 45 min lessons).Physically active academic lessons were considered an appropriate pedagogical method for creating positive variation, and were highly appreciated among both teachers and children. Both the principal and the teachers should be actively involved the implementation, which could be strengthened by including physical activity into the school's strategy. Barriers for implementing physically active lessons in schools could be lowered by increasing implementation clarity and introducing the teachers to high quality and easily organized lessons.Clinicaltrail.gov ID identifier: NCT03436355 . Retrospectively registered: 16th of Feb, 2018.

SUBMITTER: Dyrstad SM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5839008 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Physically active academic lessons: acceptance, barriers and facilitators for implementation.

Dyrstad Sindre M SM Kvalø Silje E SE Alstveit Marianne M Skage Ingrid I

BMC public health 20180306 1

<h4>Background</h4>To improve health and academic learning in schoolchildren, the Active School programme in Stavanger, Norway has introduced physically active academic lessons. This is a teaching method combining physical activity with academic content. The purpose of this paper was to evaluate the response to the physically active lessons and identify facilitators and barriers for implementation of such an intervention.<h4>Methods</h4>Five school leaders (principals or vice-principals), 13 tea ...[more]

PMID: 29510699

Similar Datasets

Project description:It is important to assess implementation of active learning interventions to maximize their impact. Implementation quality, or how well one engages program participants, has been less studied than other implementation components (e.g., dose, fidelity). This cross-sectional, exploratory study examined associations between teacher engagement behaviors, quality of teacher engagement (i.e., teacher feedback), and student physical activity outcomes during active classroom lessons. This study used data from the Texas Initiatives for Children's Activity and Nutrition (I-CAN!) randomized controlled trial. Fixed effects regressions investigated the impact of teacher engagement behaviors on student physical activity outcomes. Bivariate correlations examined associations between teacher feedback and student physical activity outcomes. A latent profile analysis explored whether there were subsets of teachers with similar feedback profiles. The final analytic sample included 82 teachers. Teacher-directed changes and teacher participation in physical activity were each associated with higher ratings for how many and how often children were active during lessons. Teacher participation in physical activity was also significantly related to higher ratings for student physical activity intensity (all p < .05). Physical Activity Reinforcement and Technical Instruction feedback were positively associated with activity intensity (r = - .20, p < .05 and r = .34, p < .01, respectively). Technical Instruction feedback was positively associated with how many (r = .25, p < .01) and how often (r = .41, p < .01) students were active during lessons. Negative feedback was negatively associated with how often (r = - .25, p < .05) students were active and activity intensity (r = - .25, p < .05). Game Instruction was negatively related to how often students were active (r = -.23, p < .05). All teachers were represented by high levels of Game Instruction and Classroom Management feedback, moderate levels of Content Reinforcement and Content Instruction feedback, and low levels of Negative, Technical Instruction, and Physical Activity Reinforcement feedback. These data did not indicate the existence of multiple feedback profiles. Findings suggest that teacher engagement and feedback to students during active lessons can promote student physical activity. Teachers are primarily responsible for implementing school-based interventions, so it is critical to develop strategies that increase their ability to implement them successfully. Opportunities to maximize intervention delivery, such as co-designing with teachers, should be utilized when designing school-based, physical activity interventions.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Adolescents with cerebral palsy (CP) show a reduced physical activity (PA). Currently there are no interventions for adolescents with CP in this critical life phase that optimise and maintain the individuals' physical activity in the long term. To develop such a program it is important to fully understand the factors that influence physical activity behaviours in adolescents with CP. The aim of this study is to explore what makes it easy or hard for adolescents with CP to be and to become physically active. METHODS/DESIGN: A qualitative research method is chosen to allow adolescents to voice their own opinion. Because we will investigate the lived experiences this study has a phenomenological approach. Thirty ambulatory and non-ambulatory adolescents (aged 10-18 years) with CP, classified as level I to IV on the Gross Motor Function Classification System and 30 parents of adolescents with CP will be invited to participate in one of the 6 focus groups or an individual interview. Therapists from all Children's Treatment Centres in Ontario, Canada, will be asked to fill in a survey. Focus groups will be audio- and videotaped and will approximately take 1.5 hours. The focus groups will be conducted by a facilitator and an assistant. In preparation of the focus groups, participants will fill in a demographic form with additional questions on physical activity. The information gathered from these questions and recent research on barriers and facilitators to physical activity will be used as a starting point for the content of the focus groups. Recordings of the focus groups will be transcribed and a content analysis approach will be used to code the transcripts. A preliminary summary of the coded data will be shared with the participants before themes will be refined. DISCUSSION: This study will help us gain insight and understanding of the participants' experiences and perspectives in PA, which can be of great importance when planning programs aimed at helping them to stay or to become physically active.

Project description:BackgroundPrior studies have shown that virtual reality (VR) is an efficacious treatment modality for opioid-sparing pain management. However, the majority of these studies were conducted among primarily White, relatively advantaged populations and in well-resourced settings.ObjectiveWe conducted a qualitative, theory-informed implementation science study to assess the readiness for VR in safety-net settings.MethodsUsing the theoretical lens of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) framework, we conducted semistructured interviews with current VR users and nonusers based in safety-net health systems (n=15). We investigated barriers and facilitators to a commercially available, previously validated VR technology platform AppliedVR (Los Angeles, CA, USA). We used deductive qualitative analysis using the overarching domains of the CFIR framework and performed open, inductive coding to identify specific themes within each domain.ResultsInterviewees deemed the VR intervention to be useful, scalable, and an appealing alternative to existing pain management approaches. Both users and nonusers identified a lack of reimbursement for VR as a significant challenge for adoption. Current users cited positive patient feedback, but safety-net stakeholders voiced concern that existing VR content may not be relevant or appealing to diverse patients. All respondents acknowledged the challenge of integrating and maintaining VR in current pain management workflows across a range of clinical settings, and this adoption challenge was particularly acute, given resource and staffing constraints in safety-net settings.ConclusionsVR for pain management holds interest for frontline pain management clinicians and leadership in safety-net health settings but will require significant tailoring and adaption to address the needs of diverse populations. Integration into complex workflows for pain management is a significant barrier to adoption, and participants cited structural cost and reimbursement concerns as impediments to initial implementation and scaling of VR use.

Project description:(1) Background: Personalised medicine (PM) is an innovative way to produce better patient outcomes by using an individualised or stratified approach to disease and treatment rather than a collective approach to treating patients. PM is a major challenge for all European healthcare systems. This article aims to identify the needs of citizens in terms of PM adaptation, as well as to provide insights into the barriers and facilitators categorised in relation to key stakeholders of their implementation. (2) Methods: This article presents data obtained from the survey "Barriers and facilitators of Personalised Medicine implementation-qualitative study under Regions4PerMed (H2020) project". Semi-structured questions were included in the above-mentioned survey. The questions included both structured and unstructured segments in an online questionnaire (Google Forms). Data were compiled into a data base. The results of the research were presented in the study. The number of people who participated in the survey can be considered an insufficient sample size for statistical measurement. In order to avoid collecting unreliable data, the questionnaires were sent to various stakeholders of the Regions4PerMed project, which includes members of the Advisory Board of the Regions4PerMed Project, but also speakers of conferences and workshops, and participants in these events. The professional profiles of the respondents are also diverse. (3) Results: The insights on what would help in the adaptation of Personal Medicine to citizen needs have been categorised into 7 areas of need: education; finances; dissemination; data protection/IT/data sharing; system changes/governmental level; cooperation/collaboration; public/citizens. Barriers and facilitators have been categorised into ten key stakeholders of the implementation barriers: government and government agencies; medical doctors/practitioners; healthcare system; healthcare providers; patients and patient organisations; medical sector, scientific community, researchers, stakeholders; industry; technology developers; financial institutions; media. (4) Conclusions: Barriers to the implementation of Personalised Medicine are observed across Europe. The barriers and facilitators mentioned in the article need to be effectively managed in healthcare systems across Europe. There is an urgent need to remove as many barriers as possible and create as many facilitators as possible to implement personalized medicine in the European system.

Dataset Information

Physically active academic lessons: acceptance, barriers and facilitators for implementation.

Publications

Physically active academic lessons: acceptance, barriers and facilitators for implementation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets