Contextual factors related to implementation of classroom physical activity breaks

Abstract

Brief structured physical activity in the classroom is effective for increasing student physical activity. The present study investigated the association between implementation-related contextual factors and intervention implementation after adoption of a structured classroom physical activity intervention. Six elementary-school districts adopted structured classroom physical activity programs in 2013-2014. Implementation contextual factors and intervention implementation (structured physical activity provided in past week or month, yes/no) were assessed using surveys of 337 classroom teachers from 24 schools. Mixed-effects models accounted for the nested design. Availability of resources (yes/no, ORs = 1.91-2.93) and implementation climate z-scores (ORs = 1.36-1.47) were consistently associated with implementation. Teacher-perceived classroom behavior benefits (OR = 1.29) but not student enjoyment or health benefits, and time (OR = 2.32) and academic (OR = 1.63) barriers but not student cooperation barriers were associated with implementation (all z-scores). Four implementation contextual factor composites had an additive association with implementation (OR = 1.64 for each additional favorable composite). Training and technical assistance alone may not support a large proportion of teachers to implement structured classroom physical activity. In addition to lack of time and interference with academic lessons, school climate related to whether administrators and other teachers were supportive of the intervention were key factors explaining whether teachers implemented the intervention. Evidence-based implementation strategies are needed for effectively communicating the benefits of classroom physical activity on student behavior and improving teacher and administrator climate/attitudes around classroom physical activity.

Pathways leading to success and non-success: a process evaluation of a cluster randomized physical activity health promotion program applying fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis

“…at least five out of three items were rated 3.0). Overall, this reflects the evidence [24][25][26] that higher expectations regarding the benefits of the intervention would be associated with a greater enthusiasm for implementing the intervention. We assigned the highest possible achievable value for perceived self-efficacy as the anchor for full membership with 10.0, drawing on the evidence that higher values lead to profounder implementation processes and better intervention outcomes [4,24,27,28,45].…”

“…Different context factors in schools, such as a teachers' individual preferences and opinions toward the intervention, as well as diverse practical challenges, such as time constraints, influence the way interventions are implemented [14]. Evidence shows that one important determinant factor is the perceived relative advantage associated with an intervention, which was shown to be positively associated with the dosage and the fidelity of the implementation of an intervention [24][25][26]. In addition, self-efficacy, a central variable in several individual behavior change theories, is positively associated with the intended implementation of the intervention and more positive health outcomes [4,24,27,28].…”

“…Furthermore, it allows for a better comparison of the results across studies and for improving the cumulative knowledge in the field of implementation science [30]. Currently, however, studies linking contextual factors, such as political, social, and organizational dimensions surrounding the implementation of an intervention [31], with health outcomes based on an implementation science framework are scarce [26].…”

Challenges for sport organisations developing and delivering non‐traditional social sport products for insufficiently active populations

“…In addition, employing Concept Mapping enabled participants to both identify issues of interest and group them together. This overcomes some of the methodological limitations associated with previous research investigating barriers and facilitators to implementing physical activity interventions, which employed either surveys (in which participants rated their level of agreement with researcher‐selected items) 23 or semi‐structured interviews (in which participants’ responses to open‐end questions were coded and grouped by researchers) 21 …”

“…Although most published physical activity research has explored the frequency, patterns, correlates or predictors of physical activity, 19 more recent studies explore the barriers and facilitators to implementing physical activity interventions 20–26 . This research was conducted across a range of settings including schools, 25 youth‐serving organisations, 20 and healthcare settings 26 .…”