What works best when implementing a physical activity intervention for teenagers? Reflections from the ACTIVE Project: a qualitative study

Abstract

ObjectiveThis paper explores what aspects of a multicomponent intervention were deemed strengths and weaknesses by teenagers and the local council when promoting physical activity to young people.DesignQualitative findings at 12 months from a mixed method randomised control trial.MethodsActive Children Through Incentive Vouchers—Evaluation (ACTIVE) gave teenagers £20 of activity enabling vouchers every month for a year. Peer mentors were also trained and a support worker worked with teenagers to improve knowledge of what was available. Semistructured focus groups took place at 12 months to assess strengths and weaknesses of the intervention. Eight focus groups (n=64 participants) took place with teenagers and one additional focus group was dedicated to the local council’s sport development team (n=8 participants). Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.ResultsTeenagers used the vouchers on three main activities: trampolining, laser tag or the water park. These appeal to both genders, are social, fun and require no prior skill or training. Choice and financial support for teenagers in deprived areas was considered a strength by teenagers and the local council. Teenagers did not engage with a trained peer mentor but the support worker was considered helpful.ConclusionsThe ACTIVE Project’s delivery had both strengths and weakness that could be used to underpin future physical activity promotion. Future interventions should focus on improving access to low cost, fun, unstructured and social activities rather than structured organised exercise/sport. The lessons learnt from this project can help bridge the gap between what is promoted to teenagers and what they actually want from activity provision.Trial registration numberISRCTN75594310

Y-PATHS: A Conceptual Framework for Classifying the Timing, How, and Setting of Youth Physical Activity

“…We defined recreational facilities as both publicly and privately owned spaces that are intentionally designed for engagement in physical activity, including gyms, pools, community recreation centers, sports fields, golf courses, laser tag, and trampoline parks. 43,44 In addition, recreational facilities are spaces that are physically separated from the school campus. Although many of these spaces are specifically designed for youth, outside of community recreation centers, few studies have examined how each of these spaces can affect youth physical activity.…”

Active children through individual vouchers – evaluation (ACTIVE): A mixed method randomised control trial to improve the cardiovascular fitness and health of teenagers

“…For example, some providers changed the cost of their provision allowing discounted entry or 'two for one' deals as a way to promote teenagers bringing their friends. As well as this, the local council used the feedback and initial findings from ACTIVE to underpin their future planning (69,180). This provides evidence of the sustainability of ACTIVE as it helped influence the delivery of community and school-based activity for teenagers from the local council's perspective (69).…”

“…Previous interventions have opted for structured activity as a tool to promote activity levels (17,73) and this may contribute to the lack of long-term success of such interventions (180). (11).…”

“…Most of the young people in ACTIVE appeared to have little to no awareness of the peer mentors, who they were or what the scheme aimed to do. When they were aware, they believed there were issues with their selection (180). The teenagers noted that those selected to be peer mentors (10 in each intervention school) were, generally speaking, individuals who others found unapproachable, often intimidating.…”

“…There is not a one size fits all approach to peer mentoring. However, given that teenagers were autonomously motivated and wanted to be active with their friends in an unstructured environment (69), it is possible that the peer mentor approach of a mentor was too structured, and an 'expert' peer is not motivating for teenagers (180). They stated that they would not really ask a peer for advice in relation to physical activity or exercise.…”