Increasing children’s physical activity through a teaching-assistant led extracurricular intervention: process evaluation of the action 3:30 randomised feasibility trial

BMC Public Health

Kenneth R Fox¹  Janice L Thompson⁴  Alan A Montgomery²  Jane E Powell³  Mark J Edwards¹  Kathryn Banfield¹  Lesley Wood¹  Ben Davies¹  Simon J Sebire¹  Russell Jago¹ 

[1] Centre for Exercise, Nutrition & Health Sciences, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK;Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK;Department of Health and Social Sciences, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK;School of Sport, Exercise and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

关键词: Children;    Focus group;    Interview;    Intervention process evaluation;    Physical activity;   

Others  :  1131377
DOI  :  10.1186/s12889-015-1501-3

 received in 2014-08-19, accepted in 2015-02-03,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Many children do not engage in recommended levels of physical activity (PA), highlighting the need to find ways to increase children’s PA. Process evaluations play an important role in improving the science of randomised controlled trials. We recently reported the results of the Action 3:30 cluster randomised feasibility trial illustrating higher levels of moderate to vigorous intensity PA among boys but not girls. The aim of this paper is to report the process evaluation results including intervention fidelity, implementation, context and how intervention components and trial design could be improved before proceeding to a definitive RCT.

Methods

Children’s session enjoyment was assessed every two weeks. Reasons for non-attendance were provided by questionnaire at the end of the intervention. Post intervention interviews were held with participating teaching assistants (TAs) and school key contacts (KCs), and focus groups were conducted with children in all 10 intervention schools. Interviews and focus groups examined how recruitment and session attendance might be improved and established which elements of the programme that were and were not well received.

Results

Data indicated good intervention fidelity with TA’s adopting enjoyment-focussed teaching styles and the sessions improving children’s skills and self-esteem. Several positive aspects of implementation were identified, including high session variety, the opportunity to work in teams, the child-led sessions and the engaging leader style. In terms of context there was evidence that TA’s faced difficulties managing challenging behaviour and that further training in this area was needed. TAs and KCs felt that recruitment could be improved by providing taster sessions during PE lessons and clarifying the days that the clubs would run at the point of recruitment. The programme could be improved to enhance interest for girls, by including training for managing disruptive behaviour and making some activities more age-group appropriate.

Conclusions

Action 3.30 showed promise but could be improved by ensuring age appropriate activities, providing more appeal to girls and improving recruitment through taster sessions and early establishment of days of the week it is to be offered on.

Trial registration

ISRCTN58502739. webcite

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Jago et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Strong WB, Malina RM, Blimkie CJ, Daniels SR, Dishman RK, Gutin B, et al.: Evidence based physical activity for school-age youth. J Pediatr 2005, 146(6):732-7.
• [2]Riddoch CJ, Mattocks C, Deere K, Saunders J, Kirkby J, Tilling K, et al.: Objective measurement of levels and patterns of physical activity. Arch Dis Child 2007, 92(11):963-9.
• [3]Griffiths LJ, Cortina-Borja M, Sera F, Pouliou T, Geraci M, Rich C, et al.: How active are our children? Findings from the millennium cohort study. BMJ Open 2013, 3(8):e002893.
• [4]Department of Health (UK): Start Active, Stay Active: A report on physical activity from the four home countries’ Chief Medical Officers. Department of Health, London; 2011.
• [5]Dumith SC, Gigante DP, Domingues MR, Kohl HW 3rd: Physical activity change during adolescence: a systematic review and a pooled analysis. Int J Epidemiol 2011, 40:685-98.
• [6]van Sluijs EM, McMinn AM, Griffin SJ: Effectiveness of interventions to promote physical activity in children and adolescents: systematic review of controlled trials. BMJ 2007, 335(7622):703.
• [7]Dobbins M, Husson H, DeCorby K, LaRocca RL: School-based physical activity programs for promoting physical activity and fitness in children and adolescents aged 6 to 18. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013, 2:CD007651.
• [8]Jago R, Baranowski T: Non-curricular approaches for increasing physical activity in youth: a review. Prev Med 2004, 39(1):157-63.
• [9]SPEEDNET: Primary School Physical Education - Speednet Survey makes depressing reading Br J PE 1999, 30(3):19-20.
• [10]Beets MW, Beighle A, Erwin HE, Huberty JL: After-school program impact on physical activity and fitness: a meta-analysis. Am J Prev Med 2009, 36(6):527-37.
• [11]Pate RR, O’Neill JR: After-school interventions to increase physical activity among youth. Br J Sports Med 2009, 43(1):14-8.
• [12]Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M: Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2008, 337:a1655.
• [13]Baranowski T, Jago R: Understanding mechanisms of change in children’s physical activity programs. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 2005, 33(4):163-8.
• [14]Baranowski T, Stables G: Process evaluations of the 5-a-day projects. Health Educ Behav 2000, 27(2):157-66.
• [15]Moore G, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Cooper C, et al.: Process evaluation in complex public health intervention studies: the need for guidance. J Epidemiol Community Health 2014, 68(2):101-2.
• [16]Oakley A, Strange V, Bonell C, Allen E, Stephenson J, Team RS: Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions. BMJ 2006, 332(7538):413-6.
• [17]Lloyd JJ, Wyatt KM: Qualitative findings from an exploratory trial of the Healthy Lifestyles Programme (HeLP) and their implications for the process evaluation in the definitive trial. BMC Public Health 2014, 14:578. BioMed Central Full Text
• [18]Jago R, Sebire SJ, Bentley GF, Turner KM, Goodred JK, Fox KR, et al.: Process evaluation of the Teamplay parenting intervention pilot: implications for recruitment, retention and course refinement. BMC Public Health 2013, 13:1102. BioMed Central Full Text
• [19]Jago R, Sebire SJ: Publishing pilot and feasibility evaluations of behavioural interventions: Implications for Preventive Medicine. Prev Med 2012, 55:548-9.
• [20]Jago R, Edwards MJ, Cooper AR, Fox KR, Powell J, Sebire SJ, et al.: Action 3:30: protocol for a randomized feasibility trial of a teaching assistant led extracurricular physical activity intervention. Trials 2013, 14:122. BioMed Central Full Text
• [21]Jago R, Sebire SJ, Davies B, Wood L, Edwards MJ, Banfield K, et al.: Randomised feasibility trial of a teaching assistant led extracurricular physical activity intervention for 9 to 11 year olds: Action 3:30. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2014, 11(1):114. BioMed Central Full Text
• [22]Deci EL, Ryan RM: The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol Inq 2000, 11:227-68.
• [23]Braun V, Clarke V: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 2006, 3:77-101.
• [24]Jago R, Davis L, McNeill J, Sebire SJ, Haase A, Powell J, et al.: Adolescent girls’ and parents’ views on recruiting and retaining girls into an after-school dance intervention: Implications for extra-curricular physical activity provision. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2011, 8(1):91. BioMed Central Full Text
• [25]Jago R, Edwards MJ, Sebire SJ, Cooper AR, Powell JE, Bird EL, et al.: Bristol girls dance project (BGDP): protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial of an after-school dance programme to increase physical activity among 11–12 year old girls. BMC Public Health 2013, 13(1):1003. BioMed Central Full Text
• [26]Jago R, Sebire SJ, Cooper AR, Haase AM, Powell J, Davis L, et al.: Bristol girls dance project feasibility trial: outcome and process evaluation results. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2012, 9:83. BioMed Central Full Text
• [27]Sebire SJ, McNeill J, Davis L, Haase AM, Powell J, Cooper AR, et al.: Designing extra-curricular dance programmes: UK Physical Education and Dance Teachers’ perspectives. Open J Prev Med 2013, 3(1):111-7.
• [28]Nader PR, Bradley RH, Houts RM, McRitchie SL, O’Brien M: Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity from ages 9 to 15 years. JAMA 2008, 300(3):295-305.
• [29]Ness AR, Leary SD, Mattocks C, Blair SN, Reilly JJ, Wells J, et al.: Objectively measured physical activity and fat mass in a large cohort of children. PLoS Med 2007, 4(3):e97.
• [30]Jago R, Anderson C, Baranowski T, Watson K: Adolescent patterns of physical activity: differences by gender, day and time of day. Am J Prev Med 2005, 28(5):447-52.
• [31]Webber LS, Catellier DJ, Lytle LA, Murray DM, Pratt CA, Young DR, et al.: Promoting physical activity in middle school girls: trial of activity for adolescent girls. Am J Prev Med 2008, 34(3):173-84.
• [32]Baranowski T, Klesges LM, Cullen KW, Himes JH: Measurement of outcomes, mediators, and moderators in behavioral obesity prevention research. Prev Med 2004, 38(Suppl):S1-13.
• [33]Hall WJ, Zeveloff A, Steckler A, Schneider M, Thompson D, Pham T, et al.: Process evaluation results from the HEALTHY physical education intervention. Health Educ Res 2012, 27(2):307-18.
• [34]Collard DC, Chinapaw MJ, Verhagen EA, van Mechelen W: Process evaluation of a school based physical activity related injury prevention programme using the RE-AIM framework. BMC Pediatr 2010, 10:86. BioMed Central Full Text
• [35]Wilson DK, Griffin S, Saunders RP, Kitzman-Ulrich H, Meyers DC, Mansard L: Using process evaluation for program improvement in dose, fidelity and reach: the ACT trial experience. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2009, 6:79. BioMed Central Full Text