Linking secondary school physical education with community sport and recreation for girls: a process evaluation

BMC Public Health

Warren R Payne³  Rochelle M Eime³  Jack T Harvey¹  Amanda Mooney⁴  Amanda Telford²  Meghan M Casey¹ 

[1] School of Health Sciences and Psychology, Federation University Australia, Ballarat, Australia;School of Medical Sciences, Discipline of Exercise Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia;Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living (ISEAL), Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia;School of Education, Faculty of Arts & Education, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia

关键词: Rural/regional;    Program evaluation;    Sport;    Physical activity;    Community;    School;    Adolescent girls;   

Others  :  1126393
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-14-1039

 received in 2014-04-16, accepted in 2014-10-03,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The purpose of this study was to undertake a process evaluation to examine the reach, adoption and implementation of a school-community linked physical activity (PA) program for girls aged 12 – 15 years (School Years 7 – 9) using the RE-AIM framework.

Methods

Various approaches were used to assess 'reach’, 'adoption’ and implementation: (a) a school environment survey of intervention schools (n = 6); (b) teacher feedback regarding the professional development component (91.1% response rate) and lesson implementation (60.8% response rate); and (c) post-intervention focus group interviews with physical education (PE) teachers (n = 29), students (n = 125), coaches (n = 13) and instructors (n = 8) regarding program experiences.

Results

Reach and Adoption: Seven schools (n = 1491 Year 7–9 female student enrolment; 70% adoption rate), five tennis clubs, eight football clubs and five leisure centres participated in the program during 2011. Implementation: Program design and professional development opportunities (training, resource manual and opportunities to work with coaches and instructors during PE classes) supported implementation and student engagement in PA. However, there was a lack of individual and organisational readiness to adopt program principles. For some deliverers there were deeply embedded ideologies that were not aligned with the Game Sense teaching approach upon which the program was based. Further, cognitive components of the program such as self-management were not widely adopted as other components of the program tended to be prioritised.

Conclusion

The program design and resources supported the success of the program, however, some aspects were not implemented as intended, which may have affected the likelihood of achieving further positive outcomes. Barriers to program implementation were identified and should be considered when designing school-community linked interventions. In particular, future programs should seek to assess and adjust for organizational readiness within the study design. For example, shared commitment and abilities of program deliverers to implement the program needs to be determined to support program implementation.

Trial registration

ACTRN12614000446662. April 30th 2014.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Casey et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Hallal PC, Andersen LB, Bull FC, Guthold R, Haskell WL, Ekelund U: Global physical activity levels: surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Lancet 2012, 380:247-257.
• [2]Olds T, Dollman J, Maher C: Adolescent sport in Australia: Who, when, where and what? ACHPER Aust Healthy Lifestyles J 2009, 56:11-16.
• [3]Camacho-Miñano MJ, LaVoi NM, Barr-Anderson DJ: Interventions to promote physical activity among young and adolescent girls: A systematic review. Health Educ Res 2011, 26:1025-1049.
• [4]Lubans DR, Okely AD, Morgan PJ, Cotton W, Puglisi L, Miller J: Description and evaluation of a social cognitive model of physical activity behaviour tailored for adolescent girls. Health Educ Res 2012, 27:115-128.
• [5]Webber LS, Catellier DJ, Lytle LA, Murray DM, Pratt CA, Young DR, Elder JP, Lohman TG, Stevens J, Jobe JB, Pate RR: Promoting physical activity in middle school girls: trial of activity for adolescent girls. Am J Prev Med 2008, 34:173-184.
• [6]Demetriou Y, Höner O: Physical activity interventions in the school setting: a systematic review. Psych Sport Exerc 2012, 13:186-196.
• [7]Janssen M, Toussaint HM, van Mechelen W, Verhagen EALM: Translating the PLAYgrounds program into practice: a process evaluation using the RE-AIM framework. J Sci Med Sport 2013, 16:211-216.
• [8]Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Strategies to Prevent Obesity and Other Chronic Diseases: The CDC Guide to Strategies to Increase Physical Activity in the Community. Atlanta: U.S: Department of Health and Human Services; 2011.
• [9]Stalsberg R, Pedersen A: Effects of socioeconomic status on the physical activity in adolescents: A systematic review of the evidence. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2010, 20:368-383.
• [10]Casey M, Harvey J, Eime R, Telford A, Mooney A, Smyth J, Payne W: Effectiveness of a school-community linked program on physical activity levels and health-related quality of life of adolescent girls. BMC Public Health 2014, 14:1-15. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Finch C: Implementation, Chapter 16. In Sport Injury Research. Edited by Verhaghagen E, VanMechelen W. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
• [12]Jenkinson KA, Naughton G, Benson AC: The GLAMA (Girls! Lead! Achieve! Mentor! Activate!) physical activity and peer leadership intervention pilot project: A process evaluation using the RE-AIM framework. BMC Public Health 2012, 12:1-15. BioMed Central Full Text
• [13]Young D, Steckler A, Cohen S, Pratt C, Felton G, Moe SG, Pickrel J, Johnson CC, Grieser M, Lytle L, Lee J-S, Raburn B: Process evaluation results from a school- and community-linked intervention: the Trial of Activity for Adolescent Girls (TAAG). Health Educ Res 2008, 23:976-986.
• [14]Saunders RP, Evans MH, Joshi P: Developing a process-evaluation plan for assessing health promotion program implementation: a How-to guide. Health Promot Prac 2005, 6:134-147.
• [15]Hall WJ, Zeveloff A, Steckler A, Schneider M, Thompson D, Pham T, Volpe SL, Hindes K, Sleigh A, McMurray RG: Process evaluation results from the HEALTHY physical education intervention. Health Educ Res 2012, 27:307-318.
• [16]Ory MG, Mier N, Sharkey JR, Anderson LA: Translating science into public health practice: Lessons from physical activity interventions. Alzheimers Dement 2007, 3:S52-S57.
• [17]Austin G, Bell T, Caperchione C, Mummery WK: Translating research to practice: using the RE-AIM framework to examine an evidence-based physical activity intervention in primary school settings. Health Promot Prac 2011, 12:932-941.
• [18]De Meij JSB, Chinapaw MJM, Kremers SPJ, MF V d w, Jurg ME, Van Mechelen W: Promoting physical activity in children: the stepwise development of the primary school-based JUMP-in intervention applying the RE-AIM evaluation framework. Brit J Sport Med 2010, 44:879-887.
• [19]Australian Bureau of Statistic: Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas. Canberra: ABS; 2004.
• [20]Department of Health and Aged Care: Measuring Remoteness: Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA). Adelaide: DHAC; 2001.
• [21]Department of Planning and Community Development: Find your Local Council. Retrieved March 19, 2010 from [http://www.localgovernment.vic.gov.au/web20/dvclgv.nsf/headingpagesdisplay/find+your+local+council webcite]
• [22]Casey M, Mooney A, Eime R, Harvey J, Smyth J, Telford A, Payne W: Linking physical education with community sport and recreation: A program for adolescent girls. Health Promot Prac 2013, 14:721-731.
• [23]Mooney A, Casey M, Smyth J: “You’re no-one if you’re not a netball girl”: Rural and regional living adolescent girls’ negotiation of physically active identities. Annals of Leis Res 2012, 15:19-37.
• [24]Smyth J, Mooney A, Casey M: Where has class gone to? The pervasiveness of class in girls’ physical activity in a rural town. Sport Edu Soc 2014, 19:1-18.
• [25]McLeroy K, Bibeau D, Steckler A, Glanz K: An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Quart 1988, 15:351-377.
• [26]Elder J, Lytle L, Sallis J, Young D, Steckler A, Simons-Morton D, Stone E, Jobe J, Stevens J, Lohman T, Webber L, Pate R, Saksvig BI, Ribisl K: A description of the social-ecological framework used in the trial of activity for adolescent girls (TAAG). Health Educ Res 2007, 22:155-165.
• [27]Stevens J, Murray D, Catellier D, Hannan P, Lytle L, Elder J, Young D, Simons-Morton D, Webber L: Design of the Trial of Activity in Adolescent Girls (TAAG). Contemp Clinical Trials 2005, 26:223-233.
• [28]Corbin CB, Lindsey R: Fitness for Life. 4th edition. Scott Foreman: Glenview, IL; 1997.
• [29]Health NSW: A Framework for Building Capacity to Improve Health. Sydney, Australia: NSW Health Department; 2001.
• [30]Bunker D, Thorpe R: A model for the teaching of games in secondary schools. Bulletin of Phys Educ 1983, 18:5-8.
• [31]Hayes D, Mills M, Christie P, Lingard B: Teachers and Schooling Making a Difference: Productive Pedagogies, Assessment and Performance. Crows Nest, NSW, Australia: Allen and Unwin; 2006.
• [32]Light R, Fawns R: Knowing the game: Integrating speech and action in games teaching through TGfU. Quest 2003, 55:161-176.
• [33]Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM: Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM Framework. Am J Public Health 1999, 89:1322-1327.
• [34]Hardy L, King L, Espinel P, Cosgrove C, Bauman A: NSW Schools Physical Activity and Nutrition Survey (SPANS) 2010: Full Report. Sydney: NSW Ministry of Health; 2010.
• [35]Boeiji H: A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Qual Quant 2002, 36:391-409.
• [36]QSR International: NVivo Version 9 [Computer Software]. Retrieved May 17, 2011 from [http://www.qsrinternational.com webcite]
• [37]Yin RK: Case study research: Design and methods. Applied Social Research Methods Series. 5th edition. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 2003.
• [38]Creswell JW: Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2003.
• [39]Scully M, Dixon H, White V, Beckmann K: Dietary, physical activity and sedentary behaviour among Australian secondary students in 2005. Health Promot Int 2007, 22:236-245.
• [40]Department of Education and Early Childhood Development: Improving School Sport and Physical Education in your School. Melbourne: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Government of Victoria; 2009.
• [41]Australian Bureau of Statistics: Children’s Participation in Cultural and Leisure Activities, Australia. Cat. No. 4901.0. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2012.
• [42]Mooney A, Casey M: 'Girls get going’: Using Games Sense to Promote Physical Activity Amongst Adolescent Girls in Rural and Regional Contexts in Australia’. In Contemporary Developments in Games Teaching. Edited by Light R, Harvey S, Quay J, Mooney A. Milton Park, Abingdon: Routledge; 2014.
• [43]Tinning R: Pedagogy and Human Movement: Theory, Practice, Research. In International Studies in Physical Education and Youth Sport. Edited by Bailey R. London: Routledge; 2010.
• [44]Kirk D: Physical Education Futures. Milton Park, Abingdon: Routledge; 2010.
• [45]Eime RM, Harvey JT, Craike MJ, Symons CM, Payne WR: Family support and ease of access link socio-economic status and sports club membership in adolescent girls: a mediation study. Int J Behav Nut Phys Act 2013, 10:1-12. BioMed Central Full Text
• [46]Light R, Georgakis S: Integrating theory and practice in teacher education: The impact of a Game Sense unit on female pre-service primary teachers’ attitudes towards teaching physical education. J Phys Educ New Zealand 2005, 38:67-80.
• [47]Light R: Coaches’ experiences of Game Sense: opportunities and challenges. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy 2004, 9:115-131.
• [48]Harvey S, Jarrett K: A review of the game-centred approaches to teaching and coaching literature since. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy 2006, 2013:1-23.
• [49]Dyson B, Griffin LL, Hastie P: Sport Education, Tactical Games, and Cooperative Learning: Theoretical and Pedagogical Considerations. Quest 2004, 56:226-240.
• [50]Mandigo J, Holt N, Anderson A, Sheppard J: Children’s motivational experiences following autonomy-supportive games lessons. Eur Phys Educ Rev 2008, 14:407-425.
• [51]Armour K, Yelling M: Effective professional development for physical education teachers: The roles of informal, collaborative learning. J Teaching Phys Educ 2007, 26:177-200.
• [52]Weiner BJ: A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implement Sci 2009, 4:1-9. BioMed Central Full Text
• [53]Heward S, Hutchins C, Keleher H: Organizational change - Key to capacity building and effective health promotion. Health Promot Int 2007, 22:170-178.
• [54]Inchley J, Muldoon J, Currie C: Becoming a health promoting school: Evaluating the process of effective implementation in Scotland. Health Promot Int 2006, 22:65-71.
• [55]Hills LA, Croston A: 'It should be better all together’: exploring strategies for 'undoing’ gender in coeducational physical education. Sport Edu Soc 2011, 17:591-605.
• [56]Lyu M, Gill DL: Perceived physical competence, enjoyment and effort in same‒sex and coeducational physical education classes. Educ Psychol 2011, 31:247-260.
• [57]Wright J: Changing gendered practices in physical education: working with teachers. Eur Phys Educ Rev 1999, 5:181-197.
• [58]Ollis D, Meldrum K: 'Girls talking about girls’ issues’: the importance of girls-only health and physical education in promoting well-being. Redress 2009, 18:21-30.
• [59]Wright J: The construction of gendered contexts in single sex and co-educational physical education lessons. Sport Edu Soc 1997, 2:55-72.
• [60]Scraton S: Shaping Up to Womanhood: Gender and girl’s Physical Education. Buckingham, England: Open University Press; 1992.
• [61]Kohl H, Fulton J, Caspersen C: Assessment of physical activity among children and adolescents: a review and synthesis. Prev Med 2000, 31:S54-S76.