No abstract

This review aims to systematically identify and synthesize qualitative data on adolescents' experiences of the barriers to and facilitators of physical activity to understand whether these differ by socioeconomic position. Multiple databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, PsycINFO, and ERIC) were searched in August 2020.Duplicate title/abstract and full text screening was conducted. Studies were included if they reported qualitative data collected from adolescents (aged 10-19), a measure of socioeconomic position and focused on physical activity. Studies not published in English or published before 2000 were excluded. Relevant data were extracted and methodological quality assessed (in duplicate). Data were analyzed using Thomas and Harden's methods for the thematic synthesis. Four analytical themes emerged from the 25 included studies: (1) social support, (2) accessibility and the environment,(3) other behaviors and health, and (4) gendered experiences. These themes appeared across socioeconomic groups; however, their narratives varied significantly. For example, provision and access to local facilities was discussed as a facilitator to middle and high socioeconomic adolescents, but was a barrier to low socioeconomic adolescents. These findings can be used to inform how different socioeconomic groups may benefit from, or be disadvantaged by, current interventions.

Background Evaluations of school-based activity behaviour interventions suggest limited effectiveness on students’ device-measured outcomes. Teacher-led implementation is common but the training provided is poorly understood and may affect implementation and student outcomes. We systematically reviewed staff training delivered within interventions and explored if specific features are associated with intervention fidelity and student activity behaviour outcomes. Methods We searched seven databases (January 2015–May 2020) for randomised controlled trials of teacher-led school-based activity behaviour interventions reporting on teacher fidelity and/or students’ device-measured activity behaviour. Pilot, feasibility and small-scale trials were excluded. Study authors were contacted if staff training was not described using all items from the Template for Intervention Description and Replication reporting guideline. Training programmes were coded using the Behaviour Change Technique (BCT) Taxonomy v1. The Effective Public Health Practice Project tool was used for quality assessment. Promise ratios were used to explore associations between BCTs and fidelity outcomes (e.g. % of intended sessions delivered). Differences between fidelity outcomes and other training features were explored using chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Random-effects meta-regressions were performed to explore associations between training features and changes in students’ activity behaviour. Results We identified 68 articles reporting on 53 eligible training programmes and found evidence that 37 unique teacher-targeted BCTs have been used (mean per programme = 5.1 BCTs; standard deviation = 3.2). The only frequently identified BCTs were ‘Instruction on how to perform the behaviour’ (identified in 98.1% of programmes) and ‘Social support (unspecified)’ (50.9%). We found moderate/high fidelity studies were significantly more likely to include shorter (≤6 months) and theory-informed programmes than low fidelity studies, and 19 BCTs were independently associated with moderate/high fidelity outcomes. Programmes that used more BCTs (estimated increase per additional BCT, d: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.05, 0.31) and BCTs ‘Action planning’ (1.40; 0.70, 2.10) and ‘Feedback on the behaviour’ (1.19; 0.36, 2.02) were independently associated with positive physical activity outcomes (N = 15). No training features associated with sedentary behaviour were identified (N = 11). Conclusions Few evidence-based BCTs have been used to promote sustained behaviour change amongst teachers in school-based activity behaviour interventions. Our findings provide insights into why interventions may be failing to effect student outcomes. Trial registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020180624