Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33212854›Full record

ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2020

Reach, Recruitment, Dose, and Intervention Fidelity of the GoActive School-Based Physical Activity Intervention in the UK: A Mixed-Methods Process Evaluation.

Stephanie T Jong, Caroline H D Croxson, Campbell Foubister, Helen Elizabeth Brown, Cornelia Guell, Emma R Lawlor, Emma K Wells, Paul O Wilkinson, Edward C F Wilson, Esther M F van Sluijs and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

11 authors.

Stephanie T JongUKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR) and MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5012-7187
Caroline H D CroxsonNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK.
Campbell FoubisterUKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR) and MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK.
Helen Elizabeth BrownUKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR) and MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7632-1714
Cornelia GuellEuropean Centre for Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter Medical School, Knowledge Spa, Royal Cornwall Hospital, Truro TR1 3HD, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0105-410X
Emma R LawlorUKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR) and MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK.
Emma K WellsUKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR) and MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK.
Paul O WilkinsonDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 8AH, UK.
Edward C F WilsonHealth Economics Group, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK.
Esther M F van SluijsUKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR) and MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK.
Kirsten CorderUKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR) and MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK.

Funding

British Heart Foundation 087636/Z/08/Z; ES/G007462/1;MR/K023187/1Cancer Research UK 087636/Z/08/Z; ES/G007462/1;MR/K023187/1Department of Health 13/90/18Economic and Social Research Council 087636/Z/08/Z; ES/G007462/1;MR/K023187/1Medical Research Council MC_UU_00006/5Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/7Medical Research Council MR/K023187/1Medican Research Council 087636/Z/08/Z; ES/G007462/1;MR/K023187/1National Institute for Health Research 087636/Z/08/Z; ES/G007462/1;MR/K023187/1Wellcome Trust 087636/Z/08/Z; ES/G007462/1;MR/K023187/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

School-based multi-component physical activity (PA) promotion is advocated; however, research has indicated that a multi-component approach may not always be effective at increasing adolescent PA. Evaluation of the GoActive 12-week multi-component school-based intervention showed no effect on adolescent PA. A mixed-methods process evaluation was embedded to facilitate greater understanding of the results, to elicit subgroup perceptions, and to provide insight into contextual factors influencing intervention implementation. This paper presents the reach, recruitment, dose, and fidelity of GoActive, and identifies challenges to implementation. The process evaluation employed questionnaires (1543 Year 9s), individual interviews (16 Year 9s; 7 facilitators; 9 contact teachers), focus groups (48 Year 9s; 58 mentors), alongside GoActive website analytics and researcher observations. GoActive sessions reached 39.4% of Year 9s. Intervention satisfaction was relatively high for mentors (87.3%) and facilitators (85.7%), but lower for Year 9s (59.5%) and teachers (50%). Intervention fidelity was mixed within and between schools. Mentorship was the most implemented component. Factors potentially contributing to low implementation included ambiguity of the roles subgroups played within intervention delivery, Year 9 engagement, institutional support, and further school-level constraints. Multiple challenges and varying contextual considerations hindered the implementation of GoActive in multiple school sites. Methods to overcome contextual challenges to implementation warrant in-depth consideration and innovative approaches.

Indexed as

fidelitymixed-methodsphysical activityprocess evaluationschool-based intervention

Identifiers

PMID33212854
PMCPMC7698468

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.