Trial reportBMJ open2019
What works best when implementing a physical activity intervention for teenagers? Reflections from the ACTIVE Project: a qualitative study.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effect COVID Has Had on the Wants and Needs of Children in Terms of Play: Text Mining the Qualitative Response of the Happen Primary School Survey with 20,000 Children in Wales, UK between 2016 and 2021.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Y-PATHS: A Conceptual Framework for Classifying the Timing, How, and Setting of Youth Physical Activity.Journal of physical activity & health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis paper explores what aspects of a multicomponent intervention were deemed strengths and weaknesses by teenagers and the local council when promoting physical activity to young people.
designQualitative findings at 12 months from a mixed method randomised control trial.
methodsActive Children Through Incentive Vouchers-Evaluation (ACTIVE) gave teenagers £20 of activity enabling vouchers every month for a year. Peer mentors were also trained and a support worker worked with teenagers to improve knowledge of what was available. Semistructured focus groups took place at 12 months to assess strengths and weaknesses of the intervention. Eight focus groups (n=64 participants) took place with teenagers and one additional focus group was dedicated to the local council's sport development team (n=8 participants). Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.
resultsTeenagers used the vouchers on three main activities: trampolining, laser tag or the water park. These appeal to both genders, are social, fun and require no prior skill or training. Choice and financial support for teenagers in deprived areas was considered a strength by teenagers and the local council. Teenagers did not engage with a trained peer mentor but the support worker was considered helpful.
conclusionsThe ACTIVE Project's delivery had both strengths and weakness that could be used to underpin future physical activity promotion. Future interventions should focus on improving access to low cost, fun, unstructured and social activities rather than structured organised exercise/sport. The lessons learnt from this project can help bridge the gap between what is promoted to teenagers and what they actually want from activity provision. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN75594310.
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.