Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41141311›Full record

ArticleBMJ public health2025

Mixed-methods process evaluation of the EACH-B intervention in UK secondary schools: Delivery fidelity, stakeholder responses and contextual influences.

Sarah Jenner, Mary Barker, Sofia Strömmer, Sarah Shaw, Laila Khawaja, Millie Barrett, Kathryn Woods-Townsend, Donna Lovelock, Lisa Bagust, Naomi Leonard and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

20 authors.

Sarah JennerMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, Southampton, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4644-5027
Mary BarkerMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, Southampton, UK.
Sofia StrömmerMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, Southampton, UK.
Sarah ShawMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, Southampton, UK.
Laila KhawajaMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, Southampton, UK.
Millie BarrettMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, Southampton, UK.
Kathryn Woods-TownsendNIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, Southampton, UK.
Donna LovelockUniversity of Southampton School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, Southampton, UK.
Lisa BagustUniversity of Southampton School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, Southampton, UK.
Naomi LeonardMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, Southampton, UK.
Wendy LawrenceMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, Southampton, UK.
Danielle LambrickUniversity of Southampton School of Health Sciences, Southampton, UK.
Judit Varkonyi-SeppUniversity of Southampton School of Primary Care Population Science and Medical Education, Southampton, UK.
Hamid HomatashSchool of Science and Engineering, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Patricia CoakleyMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, Southampton, UK.
Christina VogelMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, Southampton, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3897-3786
Leanne MorrisonUniversity of Southampton School of Psychology, Southampton, UK.
Mary Christina HorsfallMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, Southampton, UK.
Hazel InskipMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, Southampton, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8897-1749
Janis BairdMRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Centre, Southampton, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The Engaging Adolescents in Changing Behaviour trial tested the impact of an adolescent diet and physical activity intervention involving: teacher training in Healthy Conversation Skills, a health education module (LifeLab) and a gamified smartphone application ('the app'). The process evaluation described in this paper examined the implementation, context and mechanisms of impact of the intervention (the core elements of the Medical Research Council guidance on process evaluation of complex interventions), to identify how and why participants did or did not engage with each element of the trial and the intervention. Methods: A mixed-methods approach was employed. 51 interviews with students, teachers and parents from 11 secondary schools were conducted and analysed using thematic analysis. Quantitative data reported numbers of students who attended LifeLab and downloaded and used the app. Results: 87.9% of eligible students attended LifeLab and 45.7% of eligible students downloaded the app. Students (n=72) and teachers (n=16) had positive experiences of LifeLab and the teacher training, despite the pandemic preventing in-person delivery for some schools. Students engaged in a limited way with the app. Parents (n=11) had positive views of the research but little knowledge of the intervention. Students valued learning about their own health, and teachers were enthusiastic about supporting their students' health but struggled to find opportunities to do so. Conclusions: Schools are appropriate settings in which to implement health interventions, but the research must benefit teachers and students. Most students did not engage with the app because they were not presented with it in a way that motivated them to use it. Careful consideration of the design of apps is required to encourage students to use them. Parents should be involved in research in ways that are accessible to them.

Indexed as

AdolescentEducationPublic HealthQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID41141311
PMCPMC12551551

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.