GoActive: a protocol for the mixed methods process evaluation of a school-based physical activity promotion programme for 13-14year old adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Process evaluations are critical for interpreting and understanding outcome trial results. By understanding how interventions function across different settings, process evaluations have the capacity to inform future dissemination of interventions. The complexity of Get others Active (GoActive), a 12-week, school-based physical activity intervention implemented in eight schools, highlights the need to investigate how implementation is achieved across a variety of school settings. This paper describes the mixed methods GoActive process evaluation protocol that is embedded within the outcome evaluation. In this detailed process evaluation protocol, we describe the flexible and pragmatic methods that will be used for capturing the process evaluation data. METHODS: A mixed methods design will be used for the process evaluation, including quantitative data collected in both the control and intervention arms of the GoActive trial, and qualitative data collected in the intervention arm. Data collection methods will include purposively sampled, semi-structured interviews and focus group interviews, direct observation, and participant questionnaires (completed by students, teachers, older adolescent mentors, and local authority-funded facilitators). Data will be analysed thematically within and across datasets. Overall synthesis of findings will address the process of GoActive implementation, and through which this process affects outcomes, with careful attention to the context of the school environment. DISCUSSION: This process evaluation will explore the experience of participating in GoActive from the perspectives of key groups, providing a greater understanding of the acceptability and process of implementation of the intervention across the eight intervention schools. This will allow for appraisal of the intervention's conceptual base, inform potential dissemination, and help optimise post-trial sustainability. The process evaluation will also assist in contextualising the trial effectiveness results with respect to how the intervention may or may not have worked and, if it was found to be effective, what might be required for it to be sustained in the 'real world'. Furthermore, it will offer suggestions for the development and implementation of future initiatives to promote physical activity within schools. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN31583496 . Registered on 18 February 2014

The school policy, social, and physical environment and change in adolescent physical activity: An exploratory analysis using the LASSO.

PURPOSE: We examined the association between the school policy, social and physical environment and change in adolescent physical activity (PA) and explored how sex and socioeconomic status modified potential associations. METHODS: Data from the GoActive study were used for these analyses. Participants were adolescents (n = 1765, mean age±SD 13.2±0.4y) from the East of England, UK. Change in longitudinal accelerometer assessed moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) was the outcome. School policy, social and physical environment features (n = 267) were exposures. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator variable selection method (LASSO) was used to determine exposures most relevant to the outcome. Exposures selected by the LASSO were added to a multiple linear regression model with estimates of change in min/day of MVPA per 1-unit change in each exposure reported. Post-hoc analyses, exploring associations between change in variables selected by the LASSO and change in MVPA, were undertaken to further explain findings. FINDINGS: No school policy or physical environment features were selected by the LASSO as predictors of change in MVPA. The LASSO selected two school social environment variables (participants asking a friend to do physical activity; friend asking a participant to do physical activity) as potential predictors of change in MVPA but no significant associations were found in subsequent linear regression models for all participants (β [95%CI] -1.01 [-2.73;0.71] and 0.65 [-2.17;0.87] min/day respectively). In the post-hoc analyses, for every unit increase in change in participants asking a friend to do PA and change in a friend asking participants to do PA, an increase in MVPA of 2.78 (1.55;4.02) and 1.80 (0.48;3.11) min/day was predicted respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The school social environment is associated with PA during adolescence. Further exploration of how friendships during adolescence may be leveraged to support effective PA promotion in schools is warranted

A school-based, peer-led programme to increase physical activity among 13- to 14-year-old adolescents: the GoActive cluster RCT

BackgroundAdolescent physical activity levels are low and are associated with rising disease risk and social disadvantage. The Get Others Active (GoActive) intervention was co-designed with adolescents and teachers to increase physical activity in adolescents.ObjectiveTo assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the school-based GoActive programme in increasing adolescents’ moderate-to-vigorous physical activity.DesignA cluster randomised controlled trial with an embedded mixed-methods process evaluation.SettingNon-fee-paying schools in Cambridgeshire and Essex, UK (n = 16). Schools were computer randomised and stratified by socioeconomic position and county.ParticipantsA total of 2862 Year 9 students (aged 13–14 years; 84% of eligible students).InterventionThe iteratively developed feasibility-tested refined 12-week intervention trained older adolescents (mentors) and in-class peer leaders to encourage classes to undertake two new weekly activities. Mentors met with classes weekly. Students and classes gained points and rewards for activity in and out of school.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was average daily minutes of accelerometer-assessed moderate-to-vigorous physical activity at 10 months post intervention. Secondary outcomes included accelerometer-assessed activity during school, after school and at weekends; self-reported physical activity and psychosocial outcomes; cost-effectiveness; well-being and a mixed-methods process evaluation. Measurement staff were blinded to allocation.ResultsOf 2862 recruited participants, 2167 (76%) attended 10-month follow-up measurements and we analysed the primary outcome for 1874 (65.5%) participants. At 10 months, there was a mean decrease in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity of 8.3 (standard deviation 19.3) minutes in control participants and 10.4 (standard deviation 22.7) minutes in intervention participants (baseline-adjusted difference –1.91 minutes, 95% confidence interval –5.53 to 1.70 minutes; p = 0.316). The programme cost £13 per student compared with control. Therefore, it was not cost-effective. Non-significant indications of differential impacts suggested detrimental effects among boys (boys –3.44, 95% confidence interval –7.42 to 0.54; girls –0.20, 95% confidence interval –3.56 to 3.16), but favoured adolescents from lower socioeconomic backgrounds (medium/low 4.25, 95% confidence interval –0.66 to 9.16; high –2.72, 95% confidence interval –6.33 to 0.89). Mediation analysis did not support the use of any included intervention components to increase physical activity. Some may have potential for improving well-being. Students, teachers and mentors mostly reported enjoying the GoActive intervention (56%, 87% and 50%, respectively), but struggled to conceptualise their roles. Facilitators of implementation included school support, embedding a routine, and mentor and tutor support. Challenges to implementation included having limited school space for activities, time, and uncertainty of teacher and mentor roles.LimitationsRetention on the primary outcome at 10-month follow-up was low (65.5%), but we achieved our intended sample size, with retention comparable to similar trials.ConclusionsA rigorously developed school-based intervention (i.e. GoActive) was not effective in countering the age-related decline in adolescent physical activity. Overall, this mixed-methods evaluation provides transferable insights for future intervention development, implementation and evaluation.Future workInterdisciplinary research is required to understand educational setting-specific implementation challenges. School leaders and authorities should be realistic about expectations of the effect of school-based physical activity promotion strategies implemented at scale.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN31583496.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 9, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This work was additionally supported by the Medical Research Council (London, UK) (Unit Programme number MC_UU_12015/7) and undertaken under the auspices of the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (Cambridge, UK), a UK Clinical Research Collaboration Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. Funding from the British Heart Foundation (London, UK), Cancer Research UK (London, UK), Economic and Social Research Council (Swindon, UK), Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health Research (Southampton, UK) and the Wellcome Trust (London, UK), under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged (087636/Z/08/Z; ES/G007462/1; MR/K023187/1). GoActive facilitator costs were borne by Essex and Cambridgeshire County Councils