Considerations for Individual-Level Versus Whole-School Physical Activity Interventions: Stakeholder Perspectives

Stakeholder perspectives on the barriers and facilitators of engagement in healthy lifestyle behaviours in underrepresented adolescents: a focus group study from the European SEEDS project

BACKGROUND

Obesity in adolescence has increased in the last decades. Adolescents fail to meet the recommended guidelines for physical activity (PA) and healthy diet. Adolescents with a low socioeconomic status (SES) particularly seem to have fewer healthy lifestyle behaviours. The European Science Engagement to Empower aDolescentS (SEEDS) project used an extreme citizen science approach to develop and implement healthy lifestyle behaviour interventions in high schools. As part of this project, key stakeholders were invited to reflect on the intentions of adolescents to engage in healthy lifestyle behaviours. The aim of this study was to gain stakeholder insights into the barriers and facilitators to healthy lifestyle behaviours of adolescents from low SES areas and on the possible role of these stakeholders in facilitating healthy lifestyle behaviours.

METHODS

Six semi-structured focus groups were conducted in four European countries with 28 stakeholders from different settings (schools, community, and government), like teachers, policy advisors and youth workers. The theoretical framework of focus groups was based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour. The main questions of the focus groups were centred on PA and healthy diet. The focus groups were qualitatively analysed in NVivo using thematic analysis to identify topics and themes.

RESULTS

According to stakeholders, adolescents have sufficient understanding of the importance of PA and a healthy diet, but nevertheless engage in unhealthy behaviour. Parents were mentioned as important facilitators for engaging adolescents in healthy lifestyle behaviours. Stakeholders listed lack of knowledge, time, and financial resources as barriers for adolescents from low SES families to engage in healthy lifestyle behaviours. The school environment was listed as an important facilitator of adolescents' healthy lifestyle changes, but stakeholders acknowledged that current school days, curriculum and buildings are not designed to promote healthy lifestyle behaviours. External support and collaboration with community and governmental stakeholders was seen as potentially beneficial to improve healthy lifestyle behaviours.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows the variety of barriers adolescents from low SES areas face, and the need for a broader collaboration between key stakeholders to facilitate healthy lifestyle behaviours. Schools are regarded specifically as important facilitators. Currently, the school environment entails various barriers. However, when addressing those, schools can increase opportunities for healthy lifestyle behaviours of adolescents from low SES areas.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on 12/08/2021: NCT05002049.

Interventions to prevent obesity in children aged 5 to 11 years old

BACKGROUND

Prevention of obesity in children is an international public health priority given the prevalence of the condition (and its significant impact on health, development and well-being). Interventions that aim to prevent obesity involve behavioural change strategies that promote healthy eating or 'activity' levels (physical activity, sedentary behaviour and/or sleep) or both, and work by reducing energy intake and/or increasing energy expenditure, respectively. There is uncertainty over which approaches are more effective and numerous new studies have been published over the last five years, since the previous version of this Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions that aim to prevent obesity in children by modifying dietary intake or 'activity' levels, or a combination of both, on changes in BMI, zBMI score and serious adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was February 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in children (mean age 5 years and above but less than 12 years), comparing diet or 'activity' interventions (or both) to prevent obesity with no intervention, usual care, or with another eligible intervention, in any setting. Studies had to measure outcomes at a minimum of 12 weeks post baseline. We excluded interventions designed primarily to improve sporting performance.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our outcomes were body mass index (BMI), zBMI score and serious adverse events, assessed at short- (12 weeks to < 9 months from baseline), medium- (9 months to < 15 months) and long-term (≥ 15 months) follow-up. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 172 studies (189,707 participants); 149 studies (160,267 participants) were included in meta-analyses. One hundred forty-six studies were based in high-income countries. The main setting for intervention delivery was schools (111 studies), followed by the community (15 studies), the home (eight studies) and a clinical setting (seven studies); one intervention was conducted by telehealth and 31 studies were conducted in more than one setting. Eighty-six interventions were implemented for less than nine months; the shortest was conducted over one visit and the longest over four years. Non-industry funding was declared by 132 studies; 24 studies were funded in part or wholly by industry. Dietary interventions versus control Dietary interventions, compared with control, may have little to no effect on BMI at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) 0, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.10 to 0.10; 5 studies, 2107 participants; low-certainty evidence) and at medium-term follow-up (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.12; 9 studies, 6815 participants; low-certainty evidence) or zBMI at long-term follow-up (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.01; 7 studies, 5285 participants; low-certainty evidence). Dietary interventions, compared with control, probably have little to no effect on BMI at long-term follow-up (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.13; 2 studies, 945 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and zBMI at short- or medium-term follow-up (MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.01; 8 studies, 3695 participants; MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.02; 9 studies, 7048 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Five studies (1913 participants; very low-certainty evidence) reported data on serious adverse events: one reported serious adverse events (e.g. allergy, behavioural problems and abdominal discomfort) that may have occurred as a result of the intervention; four reported no effect. Activity interventions versus control Activity interventions, compared with control, may have little to no effect on BMI and zBMI at short-term or long-term follow-up (BMI short-term: MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.13; 14 studies, 4069 participants; zBMI short-term: MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.02; 6 studies, 3580 participants; low-certainty evidence; BMI long-term: MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.10; 8 studies, 8302 participants; zBMI long-term: MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.04; 6 studies, 6940 participants; low-certainty evidence). Activity interventions likely result in a slight reduction of BMI and zBMI at medium-term follow-up (BMI: MD -0.11, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.05; 16 studies, 21,286 participants; zBMI: MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.02; 13 studies, 20,600 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Eleven studies (21,278 participants; low-certainty evidence) reported data on serious adverse events; one study reported two minor ankle sprains and one study reported the incident rate of adverse events (e.g. musculoskeletal injuries) that may have occurred as a result of the intervention; nine studies reported no effect. Dietary and activity interventions versus control Dietary and activity interventions, compared with control, may result in a slight reduction in BMI and zBMI at short-term follow-up (BMI: MD -0.11, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.01; 27 studies, 16,066 participants; zBMI: MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.00; 26 studies, 12,784 participants; low-certainty evidence) and likely result in a reduction of BMI and zBMI at medium-term follow-up (BMI: MD -0.11, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.00; 21 studies, 17,547 participants; zBMI: MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.02; 24 studies, 20,998 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Dietary and activity interventions compared with control may result in little to no difference in BMI and zBMI at long-term follow-up (BMI: MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.16; 16 studies, 22,098 participants; zBMI: MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.01; 22 studies, 23,594 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nineteen studies (27,882 participants; low-certainty evidence) reported data on serious adverse events: four studies reported occurrence of serious adverse events (e.g. injuries, low levels of extreme dieting behaviour); 15 studies reported no effect. Heterogeneity was apparent in the results for all outcomes at the three follow-up times, which could not be explained by the main setting of the interventions (school, home, school and home, other), country income status (high-income versus non-high-income), participants' socioeconomic status (low versus mixed) and duration of the intervention. Most studies excluded children with a mental or physical disability.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The body of evidence in this review demonstrates that a range of school-based 'activity' interventions, alone or in combination with dietary interventions, may have a modest beneficial effect on obesity in childhood at short- and medium-term, but not at long-term follow-up. Dietary interventions alone may result in little to no difference. Limited evidence of low quality was identified on the effect of dietary and/or activity interventions on severe adverse events and health inequalities; exploratory analyses of these data suggest no meaningful impact. We identified a dearth of evidence for home and community-based settings (e.g. delivered through local youth groups), for children living with disabilities and indicators of health inequities.

Interventions to prevent obesity in children aged 12 to 18 years old

BACKGROUND

Prevention of obesity in adolescents is an international public health priority. The prevalence of overweight and obesity is over 25% in North and South America, Australia, most of Europe, and the Gulf region. Interventions that aim to prevent obesity involve strategies that promote healthy diets or 'activity' levels (physical activity, sedentary behaviour and/or sleep) or both, and work by reducing energy intake and/or increasing energy expenditure, respectively. There is uncertainty over which approaches are more effective, and numerous new studies have been published over the last five years since the previous version of this Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions that aim to prevent obesity in adolescents by modifying dietary intake or 'activity' levels, or a combination of both, on changes in BMI, zBMI score and serious adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was February 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in adolescents (mean age 12 years and above but less than 19 years), comparing diet or 'activity' interventions (or both) to prevent obesity with no intervention, usual care, or with another eligible intervention, in any setting. Studies had to measure outcomes at a minimum of 12 weeks post baseline. We excluded interventions designed primarily to improve sporting performance.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our outcomes were BMI, zBMI score and serious adverse events, assessed at short- (12 weeks to < 9 months from baseline), medium- (9 months to < 15 months) and long-term (≥ 15 months) follow-up. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes 74 studies (83,407 participants); 54 studies (46,358 participants) were included in meta-analyses. Sixty studies were based in high-income countries. The main setting for intervention delivery was schools (57 studies), followed by home (nine studies), the community (five studies) and a primary care setting (three studies). Fifty-one interventions were implemented for less than nine months; the shortest was conducted over one visit and the longest over 28 months. Sixty-two studies declared non-industry funding; five were funded in part by industry. Dietary interventions versus control The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of dietary interventions on body mass index (BMI) at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) -0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.41 to 0.06; 3 studies, 605 participants), medium-term follow-up (MD -0.65, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.11; 3 studies, 900 participants), and standardised BMI (zBMI) at long-term follow-up (MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.38 to 0.10; 2 studies, 1089 participants); all very low-certainty evidence. Compared with control, dietary interventions may have little to no effect on BMI at long-term follow-up (MD -0.30, 95% CI -1.67 to 1.07; 1 study, 44 participants); zBMI at short-term (MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.01; 5 studies, 3154 participants); and zBMI at medium-term (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.21; 1 study, 112 participants) follow-up; all low-certainty evidence. Dietary interventions may have little to no effect on serious adverse events (two studies, 377 participants; low-certainty evidence). Activity interventions versus control Compared with control, activity interventions do not reduce BMI at short-term follow-up (MD -0.64, 95% CI -1.86 to 0.58; 6 studies, 1780 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably do not reduce zBMI at medium- (MD 0, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.05; 6 studies, 5335 participants) or long-term (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.02; 1 study, 985 participants) follow-up; both moderate-certainty evidence. Activity interventions do not reduce zBMI at short-term follow-up (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.05; 7 studies, 4718 participants; high-certainty evidence), but may reduce BMI slightly at medium-term (MD -0.32, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.11; 3 studies, 2143 participants) and long-term (MD -0.28, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.05; 1 study, 985 participants) follow-up; both low-certainty evidence. Seven studies (5428 participants; low-certainty evidence) reported data on serious adverse events: two reported injuries relating to the exercise component of the intervention and five reported no effect of intervention on reported serious adverse events. Dietary and activity interventions versus control Dietary and activity interventions, compared with control, do not reduce BMI at short-term follow-up (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.13; 11 studies, 3429 participants; high-certainty evidence), and probably do not reduce BMI at medium-term (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.11; 8 studies, 5612 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or long-term (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.16; 6 studies, 8736 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) follow-up. They may have little to no effect on zBMI in the short term, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -0.09, 95% CI -0.2 to 0.02; 3 studies, 515 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and they may not reduce zBMI at medium-term (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.01; 6 studies, 3511 participants; low-certainty evidence) or long-term (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.01; 7 studies, 8430 participants; low-certainty evidence) follow-up. Four studies (2394 participants) reported data on serious adverse events (very low-certainty evidence): one reported an increase in weight concern in a few adolescents and three reported no effect.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence demonstrates that dietary interventions may have little to no effect on obesity in adolescents. There is low-certainty evidence that activity interventions may have a small beneficial effect on BMI at medium- and long-term follow-up. Diet plus activity interventions may result in little to no difference. Importantly, this updated review also suggests that interventions to prevent obesity in this age group may result in little to no difference in serious adverse effects. Limitations of the evidence include inconsistent results across studies, lack of methodological rigour in some studies and small sample sizes. Further research is justified to investigate the effects of diet and activity interventions to prevent childhood obesity in community settings, and in young people with disabilities, since very few ongoing studies are likely to address these. Further randomised trials to address the remaining uncertainty about the effects of diet, activity interventions, or both, to prevent childhood obesity in schools (ideally with zBMI as the measured outcome) would need to have larger samples.

Feasible Peer-Mediated Intervention for Autistic Children Using Minimal Speech: A Qualitative Intervention Development Process

PURPOSE

Qualitative engagement with stakeholders in the development of interventions can provide insight into strategies to maximize feasibility in real-life settings. We engaged stakeholders (autistic adults, early childhood educators, early childhood sector leaders and policy influencers, parents of autistic children, and speech-language pathologists) to inform the development of an educator-led peer-mediated intervention (PMI) for autistic preschoolers who use minimal speech that is feasible to implement in inclusive early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings.

METHOD

A qualitative iterative intervention design process was utilized. Stakeholders (N = 15) attended an online workshop and completed a document review exploring the acceptability and feasibility of the proposed embedded PMI. A two-step analysis procedure using the Theoretical Domains Framework and template analysis was conducted to identify the barriers, enablers, and supports to the implementation of embedded PMI in early childhood settings.

RESULTS

While embedded PMI was unanimously acceptable to stakeholders, several participants expressed concerns regarding feasibility. Barriers to the successful integration and implementation of PMI in inclusive preschool contexts included access to skills, knowledge, and resources. Participants identified strategies to overcome modifiable barriers and to enhance the existing enablers. These strategies are reflected in the following themes: build on the familiar, build capacity in augmentative and alternative communication, adopt a whole center approach, adapt to meet the needs of the ECEC setting, and engage in proactive implementation.

CONCLUSION

To address barriers to the implementation of embedded PMI, action is needed at various levels: macro (national/policy), meso (organization/setting), and micro (individual).

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25155770.

A qualitative exploration of multi-stakeholder perspectives of before-school physical activity

BACKGROUND

Engagement in before-school physical activity can potentially enhance health and learning-related outcomes for children and adolescents. However, influencing factors and stakeholder perceptions of before-school physical activity remain under-researched. This qualitative study aimed to examine stakeholder perceptions of: a) the suitability of the before-school segment for physical activity, b) barriers and facilitators associated with before-school physical activity, and c) strategies for schools to support before-school physical activity.

METHODS

Twelve focus groups and one interview were conducted with 38 participants from a range of school stakeholder groups-students, parents, teachers, school leaders, external physical activity providers, and school health and physical activity experts. Focus groups were analysed using template analysis, guided by a social-ecological model.

RESULTS

Stakeholders perceived before-school physical activity as valuable, for reasons including perceptions of meaningful contributions to students' cognitive functioning, classroom behaviours, and wellbeing. Factors influencing before-school physical activity were identified across multiple social-ecological levels, including the critical role of school leadership support, availability of facilities, and provision of qualified supervision. Proposed strategies highlighted the need for sustainable design, contextual relevance, and community engagement in before-school initiatives. Additionally, communication of the manifold benefits identified by stakeholders was suggested as a means to drive support and engagement in before-school physical activity.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides insight for schools seeking to enhance opportunities for physical activity in the before-school hours and may inform future intervention research on the subject, taking into account its multi-faceted influences and the need for context-specific strategies.

Observed and perceived benefits of providing physical activity opportunities in elementary schools: a qualitative study

Introduction

Schools play an important role in promoting physical activity for youth. However, school-based physical activity opportunities often compete with other academic priorities, limiting their implementation. The purpose of this study was to qualitatively explore elementary school teacher and staff perspectives on providing physical activity opportunities and how they impact students and learning.

Methods

We partnered with a school district in Texas to conduct semi-structured individual interviews. We used a purposeful sampling approach to recruit elementary teachers and staff knowledgeable about the physical activity opportunities provided at their school. Interviews included questions about participant opinions of providing physical activity opportunities and the types of opportunities provided. We analyzed data using a directed content analysis and iterative categorization approach.

Results

Fifteen participants (4 teachers, 4 physical education teachers, 3 assistant principals, and 4 principals) completed interviews from 10 elementary schools. Participants discussed observed and perceived benefits when providing physical activity opportunities, which emerged into four themes and subthemes: (1) academic benefits (learning readiness, learning engagement, and academic performance); (2) social-emotional benefits (behavior, interpersonal and social skills, and classroom culture); (3) physical benefits (brain health, skill development, physical health); and (4) instructional benefits (quality teaching time, helpful teaching tools, and teacher-student relationships).

Conclusions

Teachers and staff observed numerous benefits when students had opportunities to be physically active, including the positive impact on academic and social-emotional outcomes. Our findings highlight the alignment of physical activity with other school priorities. Physical activity programming can be used in ways to support academics, learning, behavior, and other important outcomes.

Elementary school staff perspectives on the implementation of physical activity approaches in practice: an exploratory sequential mixed methods study

Introduction

A whole-of-school approach is best to promote physical activity before, during, and after school. However, multicomponent programming is often complex and difficult to deliver in school settings. There is a need to better understand how components of a whole-of-school approach are implemented in practice. The objectives of this mixed methods study were to: (1) qualitatively explore physical activity approaches and their implementation in elementary schools, (2) quantitatively assess implementation levels, and (3) examine associations between school-level physical activity promotion and academic ratings.

Methods

We used an exploratory sequential mixed methods design. We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with elementary school staff from a Texas school district and used a directed content analysis to explore physical activity approaches and their implementation. Using qualitative findings, we designed a survey to quantitatively examine the implementation of physical activity approaches, which we distributed to elementary staff district wide. We used Pearson correlation coefficients to examine the association between the amount of physical activity opportunities present in individual schools and school-level academic ratings.

Results

We completed 15 interviews (7 principals/assistant principals, 4 physical educators, and 4 classroom teachers). Elementary school teachers and staff indicated PE and recess implementation was driven from the top-down by state and district policies, while implementation of classroom-based approaches, before and after school programming, and active transport were largely driven from the bottom-up by teachers and school leaders. Teachers and staff also discussed implementation challenges across approaches. Survey respondents (n = 247 from 22 schools) indicated 54.6% of schools were implementing ≥135 min/week of physical education and 72.7% were implementing 30 min/day of recess. Classroom-based approaches were less common. Twenty-four percent of schools reported accessible before school programs, 72.7% reported accessible after school programs, and 27% promoted active transport. There was a direct association between the number of physical activity opportunities provided and school-level academic ratings r(22) = 0.53, p = 0.01.

Conclusion

Schools provided physical activity opportunities consistent with a whole-of-school approach, although there was variability between schools and implementation challenges were present. Leveraging existing school assets while providing school-specific implementation strategies may be most beneficial for supporting successful physical activity promotion in elementary schools.

Initial insights into the impact and implementation of Creating Active Schools in Bradford, UK

BACKGROUND

Few whole-school physical activity programmes integrate implementation science frameworks within the design, delivery, and evaluation. As a result, knowledge of the key factors that support implementation at scale is lacking. The Creating Active Schools (CAS) programme was co-designed and is underpinned by the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour (COM-B) model and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The study aims to understand the initial impact and implementation of CAS in Bradford over 9 months using McKay's et al.'s (2019) implementation evaluation roadmap.

METHODS

Focus groups and interviews were conducted with school staff (n = 30, schools = 25), CAS Champions (n = 9), and the CAS strategic lead (n = 1). Qualitative data were analysed both inductively and deductively. The deductive analysis involved coding data into a priori themes based on McKay et al's implementation evaluation roadmap, using a codebook approach to thematic analysis. The inductive analysis included producing initial codes and reviewing themes before finalising.

RESULTS

Identified themes aligned into three categories: (i) key ingredients for successful adoption and implementation of CAS, (ii) CAS implementation: challenges and solutions, and (iv) the perceived effectiveness of CAS at the school level. This included the willingness of schools to adopt and implement whole-school approaches when they are perceived as high quality and aligned with current school values. The programme implementation processes were seen as supportive; schools identified and valued the step-change approach to implementing CAS long-term. Formal and informal communities of practice provided "safe spaces" for cross-school support. Conversely, challenges persisted with gaining broader reach within schools, school staff's self-competence and shifting school culture around physical activity. This resulted in varied uptake between and within schools.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides novel insights into the implementation of CAS, with outcomes aligning to the adoption, reach, and sustainability. Successful implementation of CAS was underpinned by determinants including acceptability, intervention complexity, school culture and school stakeholders' perceived self-efficacy. The combination of McKay's evaluation roadmap and CFIR establishes a rigorous approach for evaluating activity promotion programmes underpinned by behavioural and implementation science. Resultantly this study offers originality and progression in understanding the implementation and effectiveness of whole-school approaches to physical activity.

Child and adolescent obesity

The prevalence of child and adolescent obesity has plateaued at high levels in most high-income countries and is increasing in many low-income and middle-income countries. Obesity arises when a mix of genetic and epigenetic factors, behavioural risk patterns and broader environmental and sociocultural influences affect the two body weight regulation systems: energy homeostasis, including leptin and gastrointestinal tract signals, operating predominantly at an unconscious level, and cognitive-emotional control that is regulated by higher brain centres, operating at a conscious level. Health-related quality of life is reduced in those with obesity. Comorbidities of obesity, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, fatty liver disease and depression, are more likely in adolescents and in those with severe obesity. Treatment incorporates a respectful, stigma-free and family-based approach involving multiple components, and addresses dietary, physical activity, sedentary and sleep behaviours. In adolescents in particular, adjunctive therapies can be valuable, such as more intensive dietary therapies, pharmacotherapy and bariatric surgery. Prevention of obesity requires a whole-system approach and joined-up policy initiatives across government departments. Development and implementation of interventions to prevent paediatric obesity in children should focus on interventions that are feasible, effective and likely to reduce gaps in health inequalities.

How to select interventions for promoting physical activity in schools? Combining preferences of stakeholders and scientists

BACKGROUND

The failure to scale-up and implement physical activity (PA) interventions in real world contexts, which were previously successful under controlled conditions, may be attributed to the different criteria of stakeholders and scientists in the selection process of available interventions. Therefore, the aim of our study was to investigate and compare the criteria applied by local stakeholders and scientists for selecting amongst suitable school-based PA interventions for implementation.

METHODS

We conducted a three-round repeated survey Delphi study with local stakeholders (n = 7; Bremen, Germany) and international scientific PA experts (n = 6). Independently for both panels, two rounds were utilized to develop a list of criteria and the definitions of criteria, followed by a prioritization of the criteria in the third round. For each panel, a narrative analysis was used to rank-order unique criteria, list the number of scorers for the unique criteria and synthesize criteria into overarching categories.

RESULTS

The stakeholders developed a list of 53 unique criteria, synthesized into 11 categories with top-ranked criteria being 'free of costs', 'longevity' and 'integration into everyday school life'. The scientists listed 35 unique criteria, synthesized into 7 categories with the top-ranked criteria being 'efficacy', 'potential for reach' and 'feasibility'. The top ranked unique criteria in the stakeholder panel were distributed over many categories, whereas four out of the top six criteria in the scientist panel were related to 'evidence'.

CONCLUSIONS

Although stakeholders and scientists identified similar criteria, major differences were disclosed in the prioritization of the criteria. We recommend an early collaboration of stakeholders and scientists in the design, implementation, and evaluation of PA interventions.

Child and family experiences of a whole-systems approach to physical activity in a multiethnic UK city: a citizen science evaluation protocol

INTRODUCTION

Whole-systems approaches are being adopted to tackle physical inactivity. The mechanisms contributing to changes resulting from whole-systems approaches are not fully understood. The voices of children and families that these approaches are designed for need to be heard to understand what is working, for whom, where and in what context. This paper describes the protocol for the children and families' citizen science evaluation of the Join Us: Move, Play (JU:MP) programme, a whole-systems approach to increasing physical activity in children and young people aged 5-14 years in Bradford, UK.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The evaluation aims to understand the lived experiences of children and families' relationship with physical activity and participation in the JU:MP programme. The study takes a collaborative and contributory citizen science approach, including focus groups, parent-child dyad interviews and participatory research. Feedback and data will guide changes within this study and the JU:MP programme. We also aim to examine participant experience of citizen science and the suitability of a citizen science approach to evaluate a whole-systems approach. Data will be analysed using framework approach alongside iterative analysis with and by citizen scientists in the collaborative citizen science study.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been granted by the University of Bradford: study one (E891-focus groups as part of the control trial, E982-parent-child dyad interviews) and study two (E992). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and summaries will be provided to the participants, through schools or directly. The citizen scientists will provide input to create further dissemination opportunities.

Assessing the Impacts of Creating Active Schools on Organisational Culture for Physical Activity

BACKGROUND

National and international guidance recommends whole-school approaches to physical activity, but there are few studies assessing their effectiveness, especially at an organisational level. This study assesses the impact of the Creating Active School's (CAS) programme on organisational changes to physical activity provision.

METHODS

In-school CAS leads completed a 77-item questionnaire assessing school-level organisational change. The questionnaire comprised 19 domains aligned with the CAS framework and COM-B model of behaviour change. Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests assessed the pre-to-nine-month change.

RESULTS

>70% of schools (n = 53) pre-CAS had inadequate whole-school physical activity provision. After nine months (n = 32), CAS had a significant positive effect on organisational physical activity. The positive change was observed for: whole-school culture and ethos, teachers and wider school staff, academic lessons, physical education (PE) lessons, commute to/from school and stakeholder behaviour.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides preliminary evidence that CAS is a viable model to facilitate system-level change for physical activity in schools located within deprived areas of a multi-ethnic city. To confirm the results, future studies are required which adopt controlled designs combined with a holistic understanding of implementation determinants and underlying mechanisms.

Navigating the river(s) of systems change: a multi-methods, qualitative evaluation exploring the implementation of a systems approach to physical activity in Gloucestershire, England

OBJECTIVES

Systems approaches aim to change the environments in which people live, through cross-sectoral working, by harnessing the complexity of the problem. This paper sought to identify: (1) the strategies which support the implementation of We Can Move (WCM), (2) the barriers to implementation, (3) key contextual factors that influence implementation and (4) impacts associated with WCM.

DESIGN

A multi-methods evaluation of WCM was completed between April 2019 and April 2021. Ripple Effects Mapping (REM) and semi-structured interviewers were used. Framework and content analysis were systematically applied to the dataset.

SETTING

WCM-a physical activity orientated systems approach being implemented in Gloucestershire, England.

PARTICIPANTS

31 stakeholder interviews and 25 stakeholders involved in 15 REM workshops.

RESULTS

A white-water rafting analogy was developed to present the main findings. The successful implementation of WCM required a facilitative, well-connected and knowledgeable guide (ie, the lead organisation), a crew (ie, wider stakeholders) who's vision and agenda aligned with WCM's purpose, and a flexible delivery approach that could respond to ever-changing nature of the river (ie, local and national circumstances). The context surrounding WCM further strengthened and hampered its implementation. Barriers included evaluative difficulties, a difference in stakeholder and organisational perspectives, misaligned expectations and understandings of WCM, and COVID-19 implications (COVID-19 also presented as a facilitative factor). WCM was said to strengthen cohesion and collaboration between partners, benefit other agendas and policies (eg, mental health, town planning, inequality), and improve physical activity opportunities and environments.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper is one of the first to evaluate a systems approach to increasing physical activity. We highlight key strategies and contextual factors that influenced the implementation of WCM and demonstrate some of the wider benefits from such approaches. Further research and methodologies are required to build the evidence base surrounding systems approaches in Public Health.