ArticleBMJ open2018
Marathon Kids UK: study design and protocol for a mixed methods evaluation of a school-based running programme.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evaluation of Social Impact Within Primary School Health Promotion: A Systematic Review.The Journal of school health · 2022Pooled it
- A systematic review of existing observational tools to measure the food and physical activity environment in schools.Health & place · 2020Pooled it
- Physical activity interventions in European primary schools: a scoping review to create a framework for the design of tailored interventions in European countries.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- The Impact of the Daily Mile™ on School Pupils' Fitness, Cognition, and Wellbeing: Findings From Longer Term Participation.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- An Evaluation of the Implementation of a UK School-Based Running Program.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Commentary on a recent article on the effects of the 'Daily Mile' on physical activity, fitness and body composition: addressing key limitations.BMC medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionSchools are promising settings for physical activity promotion; however, they are complex and adaptive systems that can influence the quality of programme implementation. This paper presents an evaluation of a school-based running programme (Marathon Kids). The aims of this study are (1) to identify the processes by which schools implement the programme, (2) identify and explain the contextual factors affecting implementation and explications of effectiveness and (3) examine the relationship between the level of implementation and perceived outcomes.
methodsUsing a realist evaluation framework, a mixed method single-group before-and-after design, strengthened by multiple interim measurements, will be used. Year 5 (9-10 years old) pupils and their teachers will be recruited from six state-funded primary schools in Leicestershire, UK.Data will be collected once prior to implementation, at five discrete time points during implementation and twice following implementation. A weekly implementation log will also be used. At time point 1 (TP1) (September 2016), data on school environment, teacher and pupil characteristics will be collected. At TP1 and TP6 (July 2017), accelerometry, pupil self-reported physical activity and psychosocial data (eg, social support and intention to be active) will be collected. At TP2, TP3 and TP5 (January, March and June 2017), observations will be conducted. At TP2 and TP5, there will be teacher interviews and pupil focus groups. Follow-up teacher interviews will be conducted at TP7 and TP8 (October 2017 and March 2018) and pupil focus group at TP8. In addition, synthesised member checking will be conducted (June 2018) with a mixed sample of schools. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this study was obtained through Loughborough University Human Participants Ethics Subcommittee (R16-P032 & R16-P116). Findings will be disseminated via print, online media and dissemination events as well as practitioner and/or research journals.
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.