Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27566535›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2016

Active children through incentive vouchers - evaluation (ACTIVE): a mixed-method feasibility study.

Danielle Christian, Charlotte Todd, Rebecca Hill, Jaynie Rance, Kelly Mackintosh, Gareth Stratton, Sinead Brophy

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Danielle ChristianSwansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK. d.l.christian@swansea.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-1117-6127
Charlotte ToddSwansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK.
Rebecca HillSwansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK.
Jaynie RanceCollege of Health and Human Science, Swansea University, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK.
Kelly MackintoshCollege of Engineering, Bay Campus, Swansea University, Swansea, SA1 8EN, UK.
Gareth StrattonCollege of Engineering, Bay Campus, Swansea University, Swansea, SA1 8EN, UK.
Sinead BrophySwansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK.
Swansea University · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K006525/1Medical Research Council MR/K023233/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdolescents face many barriers to physical activity, demonstrated by the decline in physical activity levels in teenage populations. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of overcoming such barriers via the implementation of an activity-promoting voucher scheme to teenagers in deprived areas.

methodsAll Year 9 pupils (n = 115; 13.3 ± 0.48 years; 51 % boys) from one secondary school in Wales (UK) participated. Participants received £25 of activity vouchers every month for six months for physical activity or sporting equipment. Focus groups (n = 7), with 43 pupils, and qualitative interviews with teachers (n = 2) were conducted to assess feasibility, in addition to a process evaluation utilising the RE-AIM framework. Quantitative outcomes at baseline, five months (during intervention) and twelve months (follow-up) included: physical activity (accelerometer), aerobic fitness (12 min Cooper run) and self-reported activity (PAQ-A). Motivation to exercise (BREQ-2) was measured three months post-baseline and at follow-up.

resultsQualitative findings showed that vouchers encouraged friends to socialise through activity, provided opportunities to access local activities that pupils normally could not afford, and engaged both those interested and disinterested in physical education. Improvements in weekend moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and reductions in sedentary behaviour were observed in both sexes. Boys' fitness significantly improved during the voucher scheme. 'Non-active' pupils (those not meeting recommended guidelines of 60 mins∙day(-1)) and those with higher motivation to exercise had higher voucher use.

conclusionsAdolescents, teachers and activity providers supported the voucher scheme and felt the vouchers enabled deprived adolescents to access more physical activity opportunities. Voucher usage was associated with improved attitudes to physical activity, increased socialisation with friends and improved fitness and physical activity; presenting interesting avenues for further exploration in a larger intervention trial.

Indexed as

ExerciseMotivationPovertyAdolescentFeasibility StudiesFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMalePhysical Education and TrainingPhysical FitnessSchoolsSportsSports EquipmentTransportationWalesAccelerometerAdolescentDeprivedMixed methodsPhysical activityTeenagerVoucher

Identifiers

PMID27566535
PMCPMC5002124
OpenAlexW2513827999

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.