ArticleBMC public health2026
Process evaluation of an intervention developed using a participatory approach targeting school-related sedentary behaviour among adolescents.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdolescents' high levels of school-related sedentary behaviour pose health risks, yet existing interventions have shown limited effectiveness. Participatory research, which engages adolescents and other partners in intervention development, holds promise by tailoring interventions to their needs and context, which may improve intervention implementation and effectiveness. This study conducted an evaluation of a participatory process aimed at developing and implementing an intervention addressing adolescents' school-related sedentary behaviour and the implementation process of this intervention.
methodsIntervention Mapping guided the participatory process with 12 pupils from Grade 7 and three teachers from a secondary school in Flanders, Belgium. To develop the intervention, ten sessions with pupils and five with teachers were organised. Next, the intervention was implemented over six weeks. Experiences were captured from reflection forms completed by pupils (n = 34) and researchers (n = 28), four group interviews with pupils (n = 15) and two with teachers (n = 5), as well as questionnaires completed by 31 pupils and 8 teachers. Qualitative data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Descriptive statistics were calculated from questionnaire data.
resultsPupils appreciated being engaged, however, integrating the participatory sessions with pupils within regular lessons challenged participation due to for instance time constraints. Teachers preferred a more efficient, less time-intensive engagement that still made them feel heard. Moreover, pupils and teachers mentioned in group interviews that the early engagement of a large group of pupils and teachers was necessary in participatory research to build support for the intervention. As only a small group of teachers was engaged in the participatory process, not all teachers supported and implemented the intervention. Nevertheless, questionnaire data showed that most pupils were exposed to the intervention.
conclusionsBroader engagement from pupils and teachers was suggested to improve support for the intervention and enhance the implementation of the intervention. A future study will determine the effectiveness of the intervention.
trial registrationThis study was retrospectively registered at the Open Science Framework (DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/Y8GEJ ; registered on July 1, 2024).
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.