ArticlePloS one2026
Understanding the "how" and "why": A mixed methods process evaluation for the PRO-HIIT intervention.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionProcess evaluation completes outcome evaluation by explaining "how" and "why" an intervention is (in)effective. The aim of this study was to conduct a mixed methods process evaluation for the PRO-HIIT intervention.
methodsThe PRO-HIIT intervention replaced the traditional warm-up period with 6-8 minutes of high-intensity interval training in the physical education and activity lessons, aiming to promote physical fitness, psychological parameters and academic performances among Chinese adolescents. The process evaluation was guided by the Medical Research Council guidance for the evaluation of complex interventions. Three process evaluation domains, including twelve process evaluation measures, were assessed using both quantitative and qualitative methods. Key means for process evaluation included were training logbook recording, intensity monitoring, and semi structured focus groups.
resultsThe PRO-HIIT intervention showed high level of retention rate and dose received. The dose delivered was slightly less than anticipated, with an average 26.5 sessions delivered over twelve intervention weeks. The average heart rate was 146 beats per minute, corresponding to 71% maximum heart rate, with the mean heart rate peak was 175 beats per minute (85% maximum heart rate). The average sessional rating of perceived exertion was 5, ranging from 3 to 8. Overall, participants and physical education teachers showed positive response towards the PRO-HIIT intervention. Session duration and work-to-rest ratio were adapted to balance the intervention satisfaction and effectiveness. Barriers to intervention delivery included competing priorities, severe weather, lack of sleep, repetition of exercises, and rating of perceived exertion administration, whereas facilitators included space efficiency, imparting knowledge, peer coaches, music, and physical education teachers perform the session with participants. No intervention-related injury occurred.
conclusionsThis process evaluation provided a lens through which to facilitate the interpretation of the effectiveness of the PRO-HIIT intervention. The results provide valuable insights into how a school-based HIIT intervention can be implemented and refined.
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.