Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31477088›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2019

A process evaluation of the PLAN-A intervention (Peer-Led physical Activity iNtervention for Adolescent girls).

Simon J Sebire, Kathryn Banfield, Russell Jago, Mark J Edwards, Rona Campbell, Ruth Kipping, Peter S Blair, Bryar Kadir, Kirsty Garfield, Joe Matthews and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Communicating physical activity messages with adolescents: what works? A scoping review with stakeholder consultation.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Simon J SebireCentre for Exercise, Nutrition and Health Sciences, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. Simon.Sebire@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7994-0844
Kathryn BanfieldCentre for Exercise, Nutrition and Health Sciences, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Russell JagoCentre for Exercise, Nutrition and Health Sciences, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Mark J EdwardsCentre for Exercise, Nutrition and Health Sciences, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Rona CampbellDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Ruth KippingDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Peter S BlairDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Bryar KadirDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Kirsty GarfieldDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Joe MatthewsCentre for Exercise, Nutrition and Health Sciences, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Ronan A LyonsFarr Institute, Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK.
William HollingworthDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
University of Bristol · GBSwansea University · GBUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Department of Health PHR/13/90/16Medical Research Council MR/K006525/1Medical Research Council MR/K023233/1Public Health Research Programme 13/90/16
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFew adolescent girls engage in enough physical activity (PA) to meet recommendations and there is a need for new interventions to increase girls PA. We have previously published the results of the PLAN-A cluster randomised feasibility trial which was a peer-led school-based PA intervention, showing that the intervention was feasible and held promise to increase the PA of girls aged 12-13 years. In PLAN-A, pupils nominated by their peers as influential attend training to teach them how to influence, promote and normalise physical activity amongst their peer-group. This paper reports the results of the process evaluation of the PLAN-A feasibility study, specifically focussing on acceptability to key stakeholders, intervention fidelity, receipt/experiences and perceived effect and suggested intervention refinements before proceeding to a definitive RCT.

methodsA mixed-methods process evaluation triangulated data from qualitative focus groups and interviews with peer-supporter and non peer-supporter pupils (N = 52), parents (N = 12), teachers (N = 6) and intervention training deliverers (N = 5), quantitative questionnaires, and observations of intervention delivery. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, and qualitative data were analysed with the Framework Method.

resultsThe duration, timings, content and delivery of the peer-supporter training were acceptable. There was good fidelity to the intervention manual and its underpinning theory including high fulfilment of session objectives and use of an autonomy-supportive motivational style. Peer-supporters engaged with and enjoyed the training and retained key peer-supporter messages (what counts as PA, encouragement, empathy and subtlety). Parents and teachers were supportive of the intervention and reported perceived effects including increased PA and awareness of it, improved peer relationships, and confidence. Suggested intervention refinements included increasing participatory learning, reducing technical jargon, and providing more support to overcome challenges to giving peer support.

conclusionsPLAN-A can be delivered as planned, is well-received, and appears to be effective in empowering adolescent girls to support their peer group to become more active. The refinements identified can be made within the original intervention structure, before proceeding to a definitive trial.

trial registrationISCTRN, ISRCTN12543546 , Registered on 28/7/2015.

Indexed as

Peer InfluenceProcess Assessment, Health CareAdolescentChildExerciseFeasibility StudiesFemaleFocus GroupsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSchool Health ServicesSurveys and QuestionnairesAdolescentsInterventionPhysical activityProcess evaluationSchool

Identifiers

PMID31477088
PMCPMC6720066
OpenAlexW2972141142

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.