Process evaluation design in a cluster randomised controlled childhood obesity prevention trial: the WAVES study

Griffin, Tania; Pallan, Miranda; Clarke, Joanne; Lancashire, Emma; Lyon, Anna; Parry, Jonathan; Adab, Peymané

doi:10.1186/s12966-014-0112-1

Cited by 39 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, process evaluation questionnaires were completed by both school working groups, teachers and PE teachers and were led by the frameworks of Steckler and Linnan and Saunders and colleagues . The framework of Steckler and Linnan has been used in most school‐based intervention to prevent childhood obesity , although it has been stated that it gives less attention to facilitators and barriers of the implementation process . Another commonly used framework to evaluate the process of health promoting interventions is the RE‐AIM framework .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Process evaluation of the IDEFICS school intervention: putting the evaluation of the effect on children's objectively measured physical activity and sedentary time in context

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryObjectives: The first aim was to describe the intervention implementation and reception with specific regard to physical activity (PA) within Belgian schools participating in the IDEFICS (Identification and prevention of Dietary-and lifestyle-induced health EFfects In Children and infantS) intervention. Second, we examined if a higher intervention process score in schools showed more favourable effects on children's objectively measured PA and sedentary time (ST). Methods:The IDEFICS intervention focused on improving children's health behaviour (including PA) at the community, school/kindergarten and family level. Five process evaluation questionnaires completed by school working groups, and (physical education) teachers were used for the process evaluation of four intervention modules (school working groups, healthy weeks, school environment, health-related physical education and PA). Items were summed to calculate a total intervention process score per school. Schools were subdivided into three groups (low, medium and high score). Multilevel models were used to examine if changes in PA or ST differed between schools with a low, medium or high score. In total, 333 children (54.1% girls, mean age 6.0 ± 1.5 years) from 34 intervention schools (18 pre-schools and 16 primary schools) in the town of Geraardsbergen, Belgium, provided valid accelerometer data for two weekdays and one weekend day.Results: Mean intervention process score (maximum value = 44) was 20.9 ± 5.8 for schools. The breakdown per module showed which components were implemented and received well and which components could have been improved. After the intervention, the decrease in light PA and increase in ST was much higher in children from primary schools with a low intervention process score, whereas the behaviours remained relatively stable in children from primary schools with a medium or high score. The change in moderate to vigorous PA did not differ significantly between schools with a low, medium or high score.Conclusion: The IDEFICS intervention was relatively able to prevent unfavourable changes in ST and light PA in schools with a medium and high intervention process score. Further process evaluation research is needed to obtain a more profound picture of the IDEFICS intervention process.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Process evaluation of the IDEFICS school intervention: putting the evaluation of the effect on children's objectively measured physical activity and sedentary time in context

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Process Evaluation Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As the importance of process evaluations is becoming more prevalent, researchers are increasingly reporting on the implementation of their interventions, though there is no consensus on what elements should be included 13 . Therefore elements of commonly used frameworks have been incorporated in this process evaluation based upon the works of Griffin et al, and Saunders, et al 10,13 . A systematic framework was used to evaluate the intervention's delivery quantity, quality and provide and overall evaluation of the intervention by participants, parents and teachers 10,13 .…”

Section: Process Evaluation Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Newham’s Every Child a Sports Person (NECaSP): A Summative Process Evaluation of a School- and Community- Based Intervention in East London, United Kingdom

Curry¹,

Dagkas²,

Wilson³

2016

Journal of Physical Activity and Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The NECaSP intervention aspires to increase sport and physical activity (PA) 27 participation amongst young people in the UK. The aims of this paper are to report on a 28 summative process evaluation of the NECaSP and make recommendations for future 29 interventions. Methods: Seventeen schools provided data by students aged 11-13 (n=913), 30 parents (n=192) and teachers (n= 14) via direct observation and questionnaires. Means, 31 standard deviations and percentages were calculated for socio-demographic data. Qualitative 32 data was analysed via directed content analysis and main themes identified. Results: Findings 33 indicate further administrative, educational and financial support will help facilitate the 34 success of the programme in improving PA outcomes for young people, and of other similar 35 intervention programmes globally. Data highlighted the need to engage parents to increase 36 likelihood of intervention success. Conclusions: One main strength of this study is the 37 mixed-methods nature of the process evaluation. Changes in the school curriculum can be 38 successful once all parties are involved (community, school, families). Finally it is 39 recommended that future school based interventions that bridge sports clubs and formal 40 curriculum provision, should consider a more broad approach to the delivery of programmes 41 throughout the academic year, school week and school day. Research overwhelmingly indicates that regular physical activity (PA) can lead to 52 reduction of overweight and obesity, and reduce the risk for type 2 diabetes, and mental 53 health problems such as depression and anxiety among young people 1 . Additionally, 54 sedentary time (ST), defined as time spent in sedentary behaviours such as sitting or laying, is 55 also now considered to be an important independent contributor to overweight and obesity 2 . 56Current guidelines for PA in childhood are to accumulate 60 minutes per day of moderate to 57 vigorous intensity PA 3 . There are no specific guidelines for healthy levels of ST among 58 children and adolescents, though it is generally recommended that long periods of ST be 59 broken up throughout the day 3 . 60The Health Survey for England reported that 16% of boys and 25% of girls in London 61were categorised as having a low level of PA 4 . The School Sport Survey (2008)(2009) programme. This intervention utilises school-based (PE curriculum) and community-based 76 strategies (sports clubs) to deliver Year 7 (11-13 year old) students in East London access to 77 more than 20 sports and activities 9 . 78As the number of successful and unsuccessful interventions targeting young people's 79 PA and ST has risen, it has become increasingly important to understand why a program was 80 or was not successful at eliciting these behaviour changes alongside the outcomes or impacts 81 of an intervention 10 . Process evaluation provides a comprehensive view of program 82 implementation and explores how that could impact the outcomes of an intervention 10 . A 83 summati...

show abstract

“…This is despite the fact that the importance of assessing feasibility and acceptability within a rigorous process of development and evaluation of a complex intervention is recommended by the UK's Medical Research Council (Moore et al, ). Additionally, although more recent studies have assessed components of feasibility and acceptability (Griffin et al, ; Langford et al, ), such studies rarely use multiple data collection methods to achieve data triangulation, instead opting to exclusively use questionnaires or interviews/focus groups (Barber et al, ; Pinket et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the acceptability of an adapted preschool obesity prevention programme: ToyBox‐Scotland

Malden

Reilly

Hughes

et al. 2020

Child

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Childhood obesity is a global public health issue. Interventions to prevent the onset of obesity in the early years are often implemented in preschool settings. The ToyBox intervention was delivered across Europe and targeted energy balance-related behaviours in preschools and children's homes through teacher-led activities and parental education materials and was adapted for use in Scotland. This study assessed the acceptability of the 18-week adapted intervention to both parents and teachers.Methods: Mixed methods were employed to collect both qualitative and quantitative data. Preschool staff and children's parents/caregivers completed post-intervention feedback surveys, from which acceptability scores were calculated and presented as proportions. Focus groups were conducted with preschool staff, whereas parents/caregivers participated in semi-structured interviews. A thematic analysis was applied to qualitative data following the development of a coding framework.Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed using SPSS and NVivo 10, respectively. Results:Preschool staff rated the intervention as highly acceptable based on postintervention feedback surveys (80%; mean score 8.8/11). Lower acceptability scores were observed for parents/caregivers (49%; 3.9/8). Nine preschool practitioners participated in focus groups (n = 3). User-friendliness of the intervention materials, integration of the intervention with the curriculum, and flexibility of the intervention were identified as facilitators to delivery. Barriers to delivery were time, insufficient space, and conflicting policies within preschools with regard to changing classroom layouts. Parental interviews (n = 4) revealed a lack of time to be a major barrier, which prevented parents from participating in home-based activities. Parents perceived the materials to be simple to understand and visually appealing. Conclusions:This study identified a number of barriers and facilitators to the delivery and evaluation of the ToyBox Scotland preschool obesity prevention programme, which should be considered before any further scale-up of the intervention.

show abstract

Process evaluation design in a cluster randomised controlled childhood obesity prevention trial: the WAVES study

Cited by 39 publications

References 35 publications

Process evaluation of the IDEFICS school intervention: putting the evaluation of the effect on children's objectively measured physical activity and sedentary time in context

Process evaluation of the IDEFICS school intervention: putting the evaluation of the effect on children's objectively measured physical activity and sedentary time in context

Newham’s Every Child a Sports Person (NECaSP): A Summative Process Evaluation of a School- and Community- Based Intervention in East London, United Kingdom

Assessing the acceptability of an adapted preschool obesity prevention programme: ToyBox‐Scotland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About