Reach, Recruitment, Dose, and Intervention Fidelity of the GoActive School-Based Physical Activity Intervention in the UK: A Mixed-Methods Process Evaluation

Abstract

School-based multi-component physical activity (PA) promotion is advocated; however, research has indicated that a multi-component approach may not always be effective at increasing adolescent PA. Evaluation of the GoActive 12-week multi-component school-based intervention showed no effect on adolescent PA. A mixed-methods process evaluation was embedded to facilitate greater understanding of the results, to elicit subgroup perceptions, and to provide insight into contextual factors influencing intervention implementation. This paper presents the reach, recruitment, dose, and fidelity of GoActive, and identifies challenges to implementation. The process evaluation employed questionnaires (1543 Year 9s), individual interviews (16 Year 9s; 7 facilitators; 9 contact teachers), focus groups (48 Year 9s; 58 mentors), alongside GoActive website analytics and researcher observations. GoActive sessions reached 39.4% of Year 9s. Intervention satisfaction was relatively high for mentors (87.3%) and facilitators (85.7%), but lower for Year 9s (59.5%) and teachers (50%). Intervention fidelity was mixed within and between schools. Mentorship was the most implemented component. Factors potentially contributing to low implementation included ambiguity of the roles subgroups played within intervention delivery, Year 9 engagement, institutional support, and further school-level constraints. Multiple challenges and varying contextual considerations hindered the implementation of GoActive in multiple school sites. Methods to overcome contextual challenges to implementation warrant in-depth consideration and innovative approaches.

What Happened in ‘The HERizon Project’?—Process Evaluation of a Multi-Arm Remote Physical Activity Intervention for Adolescent Girls

“…Although there is limited evidence for remote interventions with adolescents [ 37 ], a previous intervention involving adults identified significant positive improvements in MVPA and intrinsic motivation [ 38 ]. Schools are an obvious site from which to base youth PA interventions, however several issues are commonly cited when working in the school environment, such as timetabling constraints [ 39 ], inconsistencies in intervention implementation [ 40 ], varied availability of equipment and facilities [ 41 ], and lack of teacher adoption [ 42 ]. HERizon attempted to overcome such barriers as the intervention arms were not bound to a set location or weekly time slot.…”

Feasibility of a peer-led, after-school physical activity intervention for disadvantaged adolescent females during the COVID-19 pandemic: results from the Girls Active Project (GAP)

“…The stakeholders also recognised the positive impact the programme had on the students involved, alongside being active, such as skill development, which is likely to have implications for ongoing delivery. The benefits associated with being a student peer ‘mentor’ or ‘leader’ have been documented in past peer-led PA interventions [ 74 , 76 , 77 ].…”

“…Indeed, given that friend involvement can be an important factor affecting PA participation [ 25 , 26 ], recruiting friend groups could be used as a potential strategy [ 84 , 88 ] to increase recruitment. Other school-based PA interventions have found merit in providing small rewards to facilitate sustained involvement [ 73 , 76 ], such as sports bags or pens [ 76 ]. One stakeholder in this study suggested using different rewards, such as a ‘Girls Active Project’ t-shirt.…”

Influencing Factors for the Implementation of School-based Interventions Promoting Obesity Prevention Behaviors in Children with Low Socioeconomic Status: A Systematic Review

“…It is important to quantify the influencing factors (92,96), and to analyze which influencing factors are interconnected. It is essential to analyze the factors that have an influence on implementation outcomes (97)(98)(99) and on health outcomes (100). Choosing appropriate implementation strategies (101) and organizing the whole process with an overall evaluation plan (33) should be the standard in implementation evaluation in general and in children with low SES in particular.…”