Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28851329›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2017

Process evaluation results of a cluster randomised controlled childhood obesity prevention trial: the WAVES study.

T L Griffin, J L Clarke, E R Lancashire, M J Pallan, P Adab, WAVES study trial investigators

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Measuring implementation fidelity of school-based obesity prevention programmes: a systematic review.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2018
    Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

6 authors.

T L GriffinInstitute of Applied Health Research, Public Health Building, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
J L ClarkeInstitute of Applied Health Research, Public Health Building, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
E R LancashireInstitute of Applied Health Research, Public Health Building, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. e.r.lancashire@bham.ac.uk.
M J PallanInstitute of Applied Health Research, Public Health Building, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
P AdabInstitute of Applied Health Research, Public Health Building, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. p.adab@bham.ac.uk.
WAVES study trial investigators

Funding

Department of Health 06/85/11
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncreasing prevalence of childhood obesity and its related consequences emphasises the importance of developing and evaluating interventions aimed at prevention. The importance of process evaluation in health intervention research is increasingly recognised, assessing implementation and participant response, and how these may relate to intervention success or failure. A comprehensive process evaluation was designed and undertaken for the West Midlands ActiVe lifestyle and healthy Eating in School children (WAVES) study that tested the effectiveness of an obesity prevention programme for children aged 6-7 years, delivered in 24 UK schools. The four intervention components were: additional daily school-time physical activity (PA); cooking workshops for children and parents; Villa Vitality (VV), a 6-week healthy lifestyle promotion programme run by a local football club; and signposting to local PA opportunities.

methodsData relating to six dimensions (Fidelity, Reach, Recruitment, Quality, Participant Responsiveness, Context) were collected via questionnaires, logbooks, direct observations, focus groups and interviews. Multiple data collection methods allowed for data triangulation and validation of methods, comparing research observations with teacher records. The 6-stage WAVES study model ((i) Data collection, (ii) Collation, (iii) Tabulation, (iv) Score allocation and discussion, (v) Consultation, (vi) Final score allocation) was developed to guide the collection, assimilation and analysis of process evaluation data. Two researchers independently allocated school scores on a 5-point Likert scale for each process evaluation dimension. Researchers then discussed school score allocations and reached a consensus. Schools were ranked by total score, and grouped to reflect low, medium or high intervention implementation.

resultsThe intervention was predominantly well-implemented and well-received by teachers, parents and children. The PA component was identified as the most challenging, VV the least. Median implementation score across schools was 56/75 (IQR, 51.0 - 60.8). Agreement between teacher logbooks and researcher observations was generally high, the main discrepancies occurred in session duration reporting where in some cases teachers' estimations tended to be higher than researchers'.

conclusionsThe WAVES study model provides a rigorous and replicable approach to undertaking and analysing a multi-component process evaluation. Challenges to implementing school-based obesity prevention interventions have been identified which can be used to inform future trials.

trial registrationISRCTN97000586 . 19 May 2010.

Indexed as

Life StyleChildCookingExerciseFemaleHealth PromotionHumansMalePediatric ObesityProgram EvaluationResearch DesignSchool Health ServicesUnited KingdomCluster randomised controlled trialImplementation fidelityInterventionPrimary schoolProcess evaluation results

Identifiers

PMID28851329
PMCPMC5576245

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.