Process evaluation of the Bristol girls dance project

Abstract

BackgroundThe Bristol Girls Dance Project was a cluster randomised controlled trial that aimed to increase objectively measured moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) levels of Year 7 (age 11–12) girls through a dance-based after-school intervention. The intervention was delivered in nine schools and consisted of up to forty after-school dance sessions. This paper reports on the main findings from the detailed process evaluation that was conducted.MethodsQuantitative and qualitative data were collected from intervention schools. Dose and fidelity were reported by dance instructors at every session. Intervention dose was defined as attending two thirds of sessions and was measured by attendance registers. Fidelity to the intervention manual was reported by dance instructors. On four randomly-selected occasions, participants reported their perceived level of exertion and enjoyment. Reasons for non-attendance were self-reported at the end of the intervention. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with all dance instructors who delivered the intervention (n = 10) and school contacts (n = 9) in intervention schools. A focus group was conducted with girls who participated in each intervention school (n = 9).ResultsThe study did not affect girls’ MVPA. An average of 31.7 girls participated in each school, with 9.1 per school receiving the intervention dose. Mean attendance and instructors’ fidelity to the intervention manual decreased over time. The decline in attendance was largely attributed to extraneous factors common to after-school activities. Qualitative data suggest that the training and intervention manual were helpful to most instructors. Participant ratings of session enjoyment were high but perceived exertion was low, however, girls found parts of the intervention challenging.ConclusionsThe intervention was enjoyed by participants. Attendance at the intervention sessions was low but typical of after-school activities. Participants reported that the intervention brought about numerous health and social benefits and improved their dance-based knowledge and skills. The intervention could be improved by reducing the number of girls allowed to participate in each school and providing longer and more in-depth training to those delivering the intervention.Trial registrationISRCTN52882523 Registered 25th April 2013.

A peer-led physical activity intervention in schools for adolescent girls: a feasibility RCT

“…Previous studies have identified drift (when adaptations are not in line with the spirit or theoretical underpinning of the intervention) 94,95 in intervention delivery; however, this was not commonly seen in the delivery of PLAN-A. Consistent with previous research in which PA/educational intervention deliverers have been trained to deliver sessions based on SDT, 94,97,98 this study suggests that trainers welcome the approach, and that it is possible to train deliverers to adopt this method and for them to deliver it in practice. Refinements to the train the trainers elements are shown in Appendix 20.…”

Are school‐based physical activity interventions effective and equitable? A meta‐analysis of cluster randomized controlled trials with accelerometer‐assessed activity

“…Process evaluations are critical to understanding implementation success and the contextual factors that influence how an intervention works. However, on the basis of the pool of studies included in this review, process evaluations are rare: only 24% (n = 4) of included trials conducted a process evaluation . Three of these process evaluations assessed the issue of intervention fidelity, each concluding wide variance in implementation of the program across schools and settings.…”

Process evaluation results of a cluster randomised controlled childhood obesity prevention trial: the WAVES study

“…Recently, several extensive process evaluations which have used multiple methods for data collection, similar to the WAVES study, have been undertaken [13, 15, 22]. However, reporting tends to focus on the findings of each method (e.g.…”

“…Similarly, data collection methods limited to questionnaires [9, 10], survey data [11], or qualitative data [5, 12], provide no opportunity for data triangulation. The MRC guidance has increased recognition of the importance of using multiple methods for process evaluation data collection [13–15] (usually a combination of observations, logbooks, questionnaires and qualitative methods [6]), however guidance for amalgamation and analysis of such data is lacking.…”