Dataset Information

GoActive: a protocol for the mixed methods process evaluation of a school-based physical activity promotion programme for 13-14year old adolescents.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Process evaluations are critical for interpreting and understanding outcome trial results. By understanding how interventions function across different settings, process evaluations have the capacity to inform future dissemination of interventions. The complexity of Get others Active (GoActive), a 12-week, school-based physical activity intervention implemented in eight schools, highlights the need to investigate how implementation is achieved across a variety of school settings. This paper describes the mixed methods GoActive process evaluation protocol that is embedded within the outcome evaluation. In this detailed process evaluation protocol, we describe the flexible and pragmatic methods that will be used for capturing the process evaluation data. METHODS:A mixed methods design will be used for the process evaluation, including quantitative data collected in both the control and intervention arms of the GoActive trial, and qualitative data collected in the intervention arm. Data collection methods will include purposively sampled, semi-structured interviews and focus group interviews, direct observation, and participant questionnaires (completed by students, teachers, older adolescent mentors, and local authority-funded facilitators). Data will be analysed thematically within and across datasets. Overall synthesis of findings will address the process of GoActive implementation, and through which this process affects outcomes, with careful attention to the context of the school environment. DISCUSSION:This process evaluation will explore the experience of participating in GoActive from the perspectives of key groups, providing a greater understanding of the acceptability and process of implementation of the intervention across the eight intervention schools. This will allow for appraisal of the intervention's conceptual base, inform potential dissemination, and help optimise post-trial sustainability. The process evaluation will also assist in contextualising the trial effectiveness results with respect to how the intervention may or may not have worked and, if it was found to be effective, what might be required for it to be sustained in the 'real world'. Furthermore, it will offer suggestions for the development and implementation of future initiatives to promote physical activity within schools. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ISRCTN, ISRCTN31583496 . Registered on 18 February 2014.

SUBMITTER: Jong ST

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5963130 | biostudies-literature | 2018 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

GoActive: a protocol for the mixed methods process evaluation of a school-based physical activity promotion programme for 13-14year old adolescents.

Jong Stephanie T ST Brown Helen Elizabeth HE Croxson Caroline H D CHD Wilkinson Paul P Corder Kirsten L KL van Sluijs Esther M F EMF

Trials 20180521 1

<h4>Background</h4>Process evaluations are critical for interpreting and understanding outcome trial results. By understanding how interventions function across different settings, process evaluations have the capacity to inform future dissemination of interventions. The complexity of Get others Active (GoActive), a 12-week, school-based physical activity intervention implemented in eight schools, highlights the need to investigate how implementation is achieved across a variety of school settin ...[more]

PMID: 29784016

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesParent carers of children with special educational needs or disability are at risk of poorer mental and physical health. In response to these needs, we codeveloped the 'Healthy Parent Carers' (HPC) programme. This study examined the views and experiences of participants in the HPC feasibility trial to inform programme refinement.Intervention, setting and participantsHPC is a peer-led group-based intervention (supported by online materials) for primary carers of disabled children, encouraging behaviours linked with health and well-being. It was delivered by two lead and six assistant peer facilitators in six community sites (one lead and one assistant per group) in South West England over six or 12 sessions. Control participants had online materials only. The trial involved 47 intervention and 45 control parent carers (97% female and 97% white) and eight facilitators (one male).DesignA preplanned mixed methods process evaluation using questionnaires and checklists (during and after the intervention), qualitative interviews with participants after intervention (n=18) and a focus group with facilitators after trial.ResultsHPC was highly acceptable to participants and facilitators and experiences were very positive. Participants reported that the programme increased awareness of what parent carers could and could not change and their self-efficacy to engage in health-promoting behaviours. The intended mechanisms of action (social identification and peer support) matched participants' expectations and experiences. Control participants found the online-only programme flexible but isolating, as there were no opportunities to share ideas and problem solve with peers, the key function of the programme. Areas for improvement were identified for programme content, facilitator training and delivery.ConclusionHPC was acceptable, well received and offers considerable potential to improve the health of parent carers. Under the pandemic, the challenge going forward is how best to maintain reach and fidelity to function while delivering a more virtual programme.Trial registration numberISRCTN151144652.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Overweight and obesity are public concerns with risk of adverse health outcomes. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is lower in adolescents than children in general. An increase in body mass index (BMI) is associated with a decrease in HRQoL. The purpose of this study was to measure and explore the HRQoL among adolescents with overweight or obesity who had participated in an intervention study, Young & Active, with the aim of increasing physical activity (PA), reducing BMI and promoting HRQoL. METHODS:Mixed methods, with a convergent design, were used to investigate how different methodological approaches could expand our understanding of the adolescents' HRQoL. Quantitative post-intervention data on HRQoL were collected among the 84 intervention participants, aged 13-14 years, using the KIDSCREEN 52 questionnaire. The data were compared with a Norwegian reference population of 244 individuals, and analysed using a non-parametric Mann-Whitney test. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 adolescents from the intervention. A directed approach to content analysis was adopted, using the ten sub-scales from KIDSCREEN 52. RESULTS:HRQoL in the intervention sample was significantly reduced on the sub-scale of physical well-being compared to the reference population. The reference population scored significantly lower than the intervention sample on the sub-scale of parent relation and home life. No significant differences were found on the other sub-scales. The qualitative data supported the quantitative findings on the sub-scale of physical well-being, but showed that perceptions of fitness, energy level or health could vary. Regarding parent relations, the interviewees extended this to include relationships to other family members as equally important. Most of the interviewees expressed a negative view of their bodies, but not their clothing or accessories. This may explain why no statistically significant differences were found on these aspects in the results from the KIDSCREEN questionnaire. CONCLUSION:The use of the KIDSCREEN 52 instrument gave important indications about the adolescents' HRQoL and need for additional follow up. The qualitative data provided an in-depth understanding that nuanced the findings and widened our knowledge of the adolescents HRQoL. Combining methods enabled a comprehensive approach to research on HRQoL.

Project description:BackgroundPhysical Activity 4 Everyone (PA4E1) is a physical activity program for secondary schools located in low-socioeconomic areas. Over a 24-month period, schools in the program arm of a cluster randomised controlled trial (n = up to 38 schools) will receive a multi-component implementation support strategy to embed the seven school physical activity practices of the PA4E1 program. This article describes the process evaluation of the PA4E1 hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial. The process evaluation aims to describe the fidelity and reach of the implementation support strategies using quantitative data; and to describe the acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility of the implementation support strategies and physical activity practices to school stakeholders using mixed methods.MethodsQuantitative and qualitative data will be collected from participants (Physical Education teachers, in-School Champions, students) in the program arm. Data collection will involve semi-structured interviews, focus groups, a fidelity monitoring log, a fidelity checklist, surveys, and routinely collected administrative and website data. Quantitative data will be analysed descriptively and qualitative data will be analysed thematically within and across data sets. Triangulation between data sources will be used to synthesise findings regarding the implementation and potential mechanisms of impact of PA4E1 on school physical activity practice adoption, with respect to context.DiscussionResults of the process evaluation will facilitate the interpretation of the findings of the trial outcomes. It will comprehensively describe what was actually implemented and identify the potential contribution of the various components of the implementation support strategy to the school physical activity practice adoption outcomes. Findings will inform future improvement and scale-up of PA4E1 and approaches to implementing secondary school-based physical activity programs more broadly.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12617000681358 registered 12 May 2017.

Project description:PurposeTo examine adolescent experiences and perspectives of the GoActive intervention (ISRCTN31583496) using mixed methods process evaluation to determine satisfaction with intervention components and interpret adolescents' experiences of the intervention process in order to provide insights for future intervention design.MethodsParticipants (n = 1542; 13.2 ± 0.4 years, mean ± SD) provided questionnaire data at baseline (shyness, activity level) and post-intervention (intervention acceptability, satisfaction with components). Between-group differences (boys vs. girls and shy/inactive vs. others) were tested with linear regression models, accounting for school clustering. Data from 16 individual interviews (shy/inactive) and 11 focus groups with 48 participants (mean = 4; range 2-7) were thematically coded. Qualitative and quantitative data were merged in an integrative mixed methods convergence matrix, which denoted convergence and dissonance across datasets.ResultsEffect sizes for quantitative results were small and may not represent substantial between-group differences. Boys (vs. girls) preferred class-based sessions (β = 0.2, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.1-0.3); qualitative data suggested that this was because boys preferred competition, which was supported quantitatively (β = 0.2, 95%CI: 0.1-0.3). Shy/inactive students did not enjoy the competition (β = -0.3, 95%CI: -0.5 to -0.1). Boys enjoyed trying new activities more (β = 0.1, 95%CI: 0.1-0.2); qualitative data indicated a desire to try new activities across all subgroups but identified barriers to choosing unfamiliar activities with self-imposed choice restriction leading to boredom. Qualitative data highlighted critique of mentorship; adolescents liked the idea, but older mentors did not meet expectations.ConclusionWe interpreted adolescent perspectives of intervention components and implementation to provide insights into future complex interventions aimed at increasing young people's physical activity in school-based settings. The intervention component mentorship was liked in principle, but implementation issues undesirably impacted satisfaction; competition was disliked by girls and shy/inactive students. The results highlight the importance of considering gender differences in preference of competition and extensive mentorship training.

Project description:BackgroundGirls Active is a physical activity programme, delivered in UK secondary schools, with the aim of increasing moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in girls aged 11-14 years. This study presents the process evaluation as part of a 14-month cluster randomised controlled trial designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Girls Active programme and which showed no difference in the primary outcome (MVPA at 14 months) between intervention and control arms.MethodsQuantitative and qualitative data were collected from intervention schools over the course of the 14 month trial. Feedback forms and attendance records were completed at the end of all teacher and peer leader training and review days. At 7- and 14-months, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the lead Girls Active teacher in all intervention schools (n = 10) and staff from the intervention provider (n = 4) and hub school (n = 1). At 14 months, separate focus groups with peer leaders (n = 8 schools), girls who participated in the evaluation component of the trial (n = 8 schools), and a sample of boys (n = 6 schools) were conducted. All participants in the intervention schools were asked to complete an exit survey at 14 months. Teachers (intervention and control) completed a school environment questionnaire at baseline, 7- and 14-months.ResultsThe Girls Active programme, i.e., the training and resources, appeared to be well received by teachers and pupils. Factors that may have contributed to the lack of effectiveness include: some initial uncertainty by teachers as to what to do following the initial training, a predominant focus on support activities (e.g., gathering opinions) rather than actual physical activity provision, and school-level constraints that impeded implementation.ConclusionsGirls Active and what it was trying to achieve was valued by schools. The programme could be improved by providing greater guidance to teachers throughout, the setting of timelines, and providing formal training to peer leaders.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN10688342 . Registered 12 January 2015.

Project description:IntroductionSchools are promising settings for physical activity promotion; however, they are complex and adaptive systems that can influence the quality of programme implementation. This paper presents an evaluation of a school-based running programme (Marathon Kids). The aims of this study are (1) to identify the processes by which schools implement the programme, (2) identify and explain the contextual factors affecting implementation and explications of effectiveness and (3) examine the relationship between the level of implementation and perceived outcomes.MethodsUsing a realist evaluation framework, a mixed method single-group before-and-after design, strengthened by multiple interim measurements, will be used. Year 5 (9-10 years old) pupils and their teachers will be recruited from six state-funded primary schools in Leicestershire, UK.Data will be collected once prior to implementation, at five discrete time points during implementation and twice following implementation. A weekly implementation log will also be used. At time point 1 (TP1) (September 2016), data on school environment, teacher and pupil characteristics will be collected. At TP1 and TP6 (July 2017), accelerometry, pupil self-reported physical activity and psychosocial data (eg, social support and intention to be active) will be collected. At TP2, TP3 and TP5 (January, March and June 2017), observations will be conducted. At TP2 and TP5, there will be teacher interviews and pupil focus groups. Follow-up teacher interviews will be conducted at TP7 and TP8 (October 2017 and March 2018) and pupil focus group at TP8. In addition, synthesised member checking will be conducted (June 2018) with a mixed sample of schools.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for this study was obtained through Loughborough University Human Participants Ethics Subcommittee (R16-P032 & R16-P116). Findings will be disseminated via print, online media and dissemination events as well as practitioner and/or research journals.

Project description:IntroductionThe role of physical activity in children's healthy development is undisputed, with school-based interventions being seen as a priority. The promotion of physical literacy (PL) seems to be promising due to its holistic approach, combining physical, cognitive, and affective domains. To develop recommendations for possible measures, we compiled existing literature on existing school-based PL interventions.MethodsFive databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, ERIC, and PsycInfo) were searched between July 6 and July 10, 2023, by combining the terms "physical literacy," "school," "program," "workshop," "intervention," and "curriculum" as well as a manual search. Records were screened in a two-stage process by two independent authors using a priori criteria. Eligible studies concerned PL interventions in the school context. The included records were sorted according to school type/population, structure, content, PL domains addressed, and evaluation.ResultsIn total, 706 articles were found through the database search and an additional 28 articles through the manual search. After removing duplicates, 502 publications remained, which were screened by title and abstract, leaving 82 full texts. These were cut down to 37 articles describing 31 different programs (19 in primary schools, eight in secondary schools, one in both primary and secondary schools, and three unspecified). Most interventions were conducted during physical education classes (n = 12). All three PL domains were addressed by five interventions, while 11 interventions solely concerned the physical domain. In addition, 21 interventions evaluated their effects on PL. Most evaluations showed small to moderate but inconsistent effects on several PL-related constructs (e.g., self-efficacy, motivation, movement skills). Interventions incorporating all three domains reported positive effects on physical competence and enjoyment.DiscussionAlthough there is a growing body of data related to school-based PL promotion, their effects and practical application remains relatively underdeveloped: study designs, study quality, PL assessments, and results are heterogeneous. Corresponding research adhering to the holistic approach of PL will be crucial in clarifying the potential lifelong role of PL in promoting physical activity, increasing health and well-being and to actually enable development of recommendations for action.

Dataset Information

GoActive: a protocol for the mixed methods process evaluation of a school-based physical activity promotion programme for 13-14year old adolescents.

Publications

GoActive: a protocol for the mixed methods process evaluation of a school-based physical activity promotion programme for 13-14year old adolescents.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets