Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30563488›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2018

Process evaluation of a pilot multi-component physical activity intervention - active schools: Skelmersdale.

Sarah L Taylor, Robert J Noonan, Zoe R Knowles, Michael B Owen, Stuart J Fairclough

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Multiteaching style and active reflection for swimming.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Why Are Enrichment Practices in Zoos Difficult to Implement Effectively?Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors.

Sarah L TaylorPhysical Activity and Health Research Group, Department of Sport and Physical Activity, Edge Hill University, St. Helens Road, Ormskirk, Lancashire, L39 4QP, UK. sarah.taylor11@go.edgehill.ac.uk.
Robert J NoonanPhysical Activity and Health Research Group, Department of Sport and Physical Activity, Edge Hill University, St. Helens Road, Ormskirk, Lancashire, L39 4QP, UK.
Zoe R KnowlesPhysical Activity Exchange, Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, L3 2AT, UK.
Michael B OwenPhysical Activity and Health Research Group, Department of Sport and Physical Activity, Edge Hill University, St. Helens Road, Ormskirk, Lancashire, L39 4QP, UK.
Stuart J FaircloughPhysical Activity and Health Research Group, Department of Sport and Physical Activity, Edge Hill University, St. Helens Road, Ormskirk, Lancashire, L39 4QP, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSchools have been identified as key environments to promote child physical activity (PA). Implementation of multi-component PA interventions within schools is advocated but research has showed that they may not always be effective at increasing child PA. Results of the Active Schools: Skelmersdale (AS:Sk) multi-component pilot intervention indicated no significant positive change to child PA levels. Process evaluations can provide information on which aspects of an intervention were delivered and how. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to use a combination of methods to elicit child and teacher perceptions regarding the feasibility and acceptability of the AS:Sk intervention, alongside systematic researcher observations. The overarching study aim was to understand how schools implemented the AS:Sk intervention, with a specific focus on the frequency of intervention component implementation, and how the components were incorporated into the school day.

methodsThe study generated five data sets. Data elicited from 18 participating children via a write draw, show and tell task included, frequency counts of most enjoyable intervention components, drawings, and verbatim data. Teacher verbatim data was collected from 3 interviews, and 18 researcher observations were recorded using field notes. The data sources were pooled to produce the themes presented in the results section.

resultsThe combination of data sources revealed four themes and 16 sub-themes. Implementation methods: how and when the components were implemented in schools. Child engagement: enjoyment and positive behaviour. Facilitators: peer influence, teacher influence, staggered implementation, incentives, rewards, challenges and competition, flexibility and adaptability, child ownership, routine. Barriers: time within an intense curriculum, space, sustaining child interest, parental support, school policies.

conclusionsThis study revealed that teachers believed classroom based activities were most feasible and acceptable due to the reduced implementation barriers of sufficient time and space. In contrast, children reported that the activities outside of the classroom were preferred. Future school-based PA interventions should aim to achieve a balance between routine PA at a set time and PA that is flexible and adaptable. Further process evaluations of multi-component school-based PA interventions are warranted to develop the limited evidence base.

Indexed as

ExerciseChildFemaleHumansMalePilot ProjectsProgram EvaluationSchool Health ServicesUnited KingdomChildrenPhysical activityProcess evaluationSchoolsTeachersWrite draw show and tell

Identifiers

PMID30563488
PMCPMC6299621

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.