Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25886027›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2015

Process evaluation of a sport-for-health intervention to prevent smoking amongst primary school children: SmokeFree Sports.

Joanne Trigwell, Ciara E McGee, Rebecca C Murphy, Lorna A Porcellato, Michael Ussher, Katy Garnham-Lee, Zoe R Knowles, Lawrence Foweather

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Preliminary effects of a rural skin cancer prevention intervention for youths.Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Evaluating the Implementation Quality of a Social and Emotional Learning Program: A Mixed Methods Approach.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Joanne TrigwellCentre for Health Promotion Research, Leeds Beckett University, Calverley Building, City Campus, Leeds, LS1 3HE, UK. j.trigwell@leedsbeckett.ac.uk.
Ciara E McGeeCentre for Public Health, Liverpool John Moores University, Henry Cotton Campus, 15-21 Webster St., Liverpool, L3 2AT, UK. C.E.McGee@ljmu.ac.uk.
Rebecca C MurphyPhysical Activity Exchange, Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, 62 Great Crosshall Street, Liverpool, L3 2AT, UK. R.C.Murphy@ljmu.ac.uk.
Lorna A PorcellatoCentre for Public Health, Liverpool John Moores University, Henry Cotton Campus, 15-21 Webster St., Liverpool, L3 2AT, UK. L.A.Porcellato@ljmu.ac.uk.
Michael UssherInstitution of Population Health Research, St George's, University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, SW17 0RE, UK. mussher@sgul.ac.uk.
Katy Garnham-LeeSchool of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK. K.Garnham-Lee@lboro.ac.uk.
Zoe R KnowlesPhysical Activity Exchange, Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, 62 Great Crosshall Street, Liverpool, L3 2AT, UK. Z.R.Knowles@ljmu.ac.uk.
Lawrence FoweatherDepartment of Sport and Physical Activity, Edge Hill University, St. Helens Road, Ormskirk, Lancashire, L39 4QP, UK. lawrence.foweather@edgehill.ac.uk.
Liverpool John Moores University · GBEdge Hill University · GBLeeds Beckett University · GBLoughborough University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSmokeFree Sports (SFS) was a multi-component sport-for-health intervention aiming at preventing smoking among nine to ten year old primary school children from North West England. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the process and implementation of SFS, examining intervention reach, dose, fidelity, acceptability and sustainability, in order to understand the feasibility and challenges of delivering such interventions and inform interpretations of intervention effectiveness.

methodsProcess measures included: booking logs, 18 focus groups with children (n = 95), semi-structured interviews with teachers (n = 20) and SFS coaches (n = 7), intervention evaluation questionnaires (completed by children, n = 1097; teachers, n = 50), as well direct observations (by researchers, n = 50 observations) and self-evaluations (completed by teachers, n = 125) of intervention delivery (e.g. length of sessions, implementation of activities as intended, children's engagement and barriers). Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were applied to quantitative and qualitative data, respectively.

resultsOverall, SFS reached 30.8% of eligible schools, with 1073 children participating in the intervention (across 32 schools). Thirty-one schools completed the intervention in full. Thirty-three teachers (55% female) and 11 SFS coaches (82% male) attended a bespoke SFS training workshop. Disparities in intervention duration (range = 126 to 201 days), uptake (only 25% of classes received optional intervention components in full), and the extent to which core (mean fidelity score of coaching sessions = 58%) and optional components (no adaptions made = 51% of sessions) were delivered as intended, were apparent. Barriers to intervention delivery included the school setting and children's behaviour and knowledge. SFS was viewed positively (85% and 82% of children and teachers, respectively, rated SFS five out of five) and recommendations to increase school engagement were provided.

conclusionSFS was considered acceptable to children, teachers and coaches. Nevertheless, efforts to enhance intervention reach (at the school level), teachers' engagement and sustainability must be considered. Variations in dose and fidelity likely reflect challenges associated with complex intervention delivery within school settings and thus a flexible design may be necessary. This study adds to the limited scientific evidence base surrounding sport-for-health interventions and their implementation, and suggests that such interventions offer a promising tool for engaging children in activities which promote their health.

Indexed as

Child BehaviorSmoking PreventionSportsChildEnglandFemaleFocus GroupsHealth EducationHealth PromotionHumansMaleProgram EvaluationSchool Health ServicesSchools

Identifiers

PMID25886027
PMCPMC4428003
OpenAlexW1964366932

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.