ArticleBMC public health2015
Process evaluation of a sport-for-health intervention to prevent smoking amongst primary school children: SmokeFree Sports.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- High impact of implementation on school-based smoking prevention: the X:IT study-a cluster-randomized smoking prevention trial.Implementation science : IS · 2016Trial
- Preliminary effects of a rural skin cancer prevention intervention for youths.Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2024Article
- Smoking and Vaping in Amateur Rugby Players, Coaches and Referees: Findings from a Regional Survey Might Help to Define Prevention Targets.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Formative Evaluation of Open Goals: A UK Community-Based Multi-Sport Family Programme.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Evaluating the Implementation Quality of a Social and Emotional Learning Program: A Mixed Methods Approach.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Validation of the Chinese Non-pharmacological Therapy Experience Scale in persons with intellectual disability.Nursing open · 2020Article
- Studies evaluating of health interventions at schools: an integrative literature review.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2018Review
- A quasi-experimental cross-disciplinary evaluation of the impacts of education outside the classroom on pupils' physical activity, well-being and learning: the TEACHOUT study protocol.BMC public health · 2016Article
- Effect of a sport-for-health intervention (SmokeFree Sports) on smoking-related intentions and cognitions among 9-10 year old primary school children: a controlled trial.BMC public health · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.