ArticleBMJ public health2025
Mixed-methods process evaluation of the EACH-B intervention in UK secondary schools: Delivery fidelity, stakeholder responses and contextual influences.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.