The process evaluation of a school-based physical activity intervention: influencing factors and potential consequences of implementation

Abstract

PurposeThis paper evaluates the implementation of a school-based physical activity intervention and discusses how the intervention outcomes can be influenced by the implementation.Design/methodology/approachIn four of the nine lower secondary schools in which the intervention was conducted, the authors examined implementation fidelity, adaptation, quality, responsiveness and dose received. The authors conducted focus group interviews with teachers (n = 8) and students (n = 46) and made observations. Dose delivered was examined quantitatively, with weekly registrations.FindingsResults showed that two out of four schools made few and positive adaptations, implemented the intervention with high fidelity and quality and responded positively. Four main factors were found to influence implementation: frame factors, intervention characteristics, participant characteristics and provider characteristics.Research limitations/implicationsA cross-sectional design was used and may not represent implementation throughout the whole school year.Practical implicationsIn terms of large-scale implementation, the intervention may be generalizable. However, intervention criteria such as adequate facilities and a flexible timetable may be unattainable for some schools. The intervention can be adapted without compromising its purpose, but adaptations should be a result of cooperation between students and teachers.Originality/valueProcess evaluations on this topic are rare. This study adds to a limited knowledge base concerning what factors may influence implementation of school-based physical activity interventions for adolescents.

School-based physical activity interventions, physical fitness and mental health among adolescents; Effects, associations and lessons learned from the School in Motion study

“…M2, however, contained two lessons that were mainly studentled. The process evaluation substantiates the hypothesis that the extensive freedom and studentled activities that characterized M2 sometimes led to truancy (Åvitsland, Ohna, et al, 2020).…”

“…To assess fidelity, adaptation, quality and responsiveness, qualitative process evaluations were carried out on both interventions. The process evaluation for M2 has been published elsewhere (Åvitsland, Ohna, et al, 2020), while the process evaluation for M1, is provisional and only available in Norwegian (Kolle et al, 2019). Dose delivered was also measured: One teacher liaison from each school was responsible for reporting the intervention components as executed/not executed on an online platform.…”

“…The negative effects were surprising, considering that the intervention was designed to facilitate social relationships through PA. Additionally, participation in team sports has been associated with fewer mental problems than participation in individual sports , and a recent review by concluded that PA could contribute to reducing loneliness. The process evaluation of the M2 intervention offers a possible explanation for the negative effect among girls (Åvitsland, Ohna, et al, 2020): The formation of activity groups could lead to some girls feeling ostracized, while planning and cooperating within the group sometimes led to disagreements, which could cause one or several girls to leave their groups. Previous research on sex differences in adolescent peer relationships has shown that social anxiety, expressed by a "fear of negative evaluation from peers, and more social avoidance and distress in new situations" (La , is more prevalent in girls than in boys.…”

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.…”

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

“…Despite quantitative reports indicating implementation of components such as in-class peer leaders, qualitative data shed light on the low quality of implementation of such components. The mixed-methods data suggest that the ambiguity of GoActive delivery roles, in particular the teacher and mentor role, may have been a primary factor impacting implementation quality, as opposed to the variation in facilitates as suggested for other physical activity interventions [ 35 ].…”