Purpose'. To examine adolescent experiences and perspectives of the GoActive intervention (ISRCTN31583496) using mixed methods processevaluation to determine satisfaction with intervention components and interpret...Purpose'. To examine adolescent experiences and perspectives of the GoActive intervention (ISRCTN31583496) using mixed methods processevaluation to determine satisfaction with intervention components and interpret a*dolescents experiences of the intervention process in order toprovide insights for future intervention design.Methods'. Participants (n = 1542;13.2 土 0.4 years, mean 土 SD) provided questionnaire data at baseline (shyness, activity level) and post-intervention(intervention acceptability, satisfaction with components). Between-group differences (boys vs. girls and shy/inactive vs. others) weretested with linear regression models, accounting for school clustering. Data from 16 individual interviews (shy/inactive) and 11 focus groupswith 48 participants (mean = 4;range 2—7) were thematically coded. Qualitative and quantitative data were merged in an integrative mixedmethods convergence matrix, which denoted convergence and dissonance across datasets.Results'. Effect sizes for quantitative results were small and may not represent substantial between-group differences. Boys (vs. girls) preferredclass-based sessions (0 = 0.2, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.1—0.3);qualitative data suggested that this was because boys preferred competition,which was supported quantitatively (0 = 0.2, 95%CI: 0.1-0.3). Shy/inactive students did not enjoy the competition (0 = -0.3, 95%CI:—0.5 to —0.1). Boys enjoyed trying new activities more (0 = 0.1, 95%CI: 0.1 -0.2);qualitative data indicated a desire to try new activities acrossall subgroups but identified barriers to choosing unfamiliar activities with self-imposed choice restriction leading to boredom. Qualitative datahighlighted critique of mentorship;adolescents liked the idea, but older mentors did not meet expectations.Conclusion. We interpreted adolescent perspectives of intervention components and implementation to provide insights into future complexinterventions aimed at increasing young people's physical activity in school-based settings. The intervention component mentorship was liked inprinciple, but implementation issues undesirably impacted satisfaction;competition was disliked by girls and shy/inactive students. The resultshighlight the importance of considering gender differences in preference of competition and extensive mentorship training.展开更多
基金funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research Programme (13/90/18)supported by the Medical Research Council (Unit Program number MC_UU_12015/7)and was undertaken under the auspices of the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR),a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence+2 种基金Funding from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK,Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council,National Institute for Health Research,and Wellcome Trust,under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration,is gratefully acknowledged(087636/Z/08/ZES/G007462/1MR/K023187/1)
文摘Purpose'. To examine adolescent experiences and perspectives of the GoActive intervention (ISRCTN31583496) using mixed methods processevaluation to determine satisfaction with intervention components and interpret a*dolescents experiences of the intervention process in order toprovide insights for future intervention design.Methods'. Participants (n = 1542;13.2 土 0.4 years, mean 土 SD) provided questionnaire data at baseline (shyness, activity level) and post-intervention(intervention acceptability, satisfaction with components). Between-group differences (boys vs. girls and shy/inactive vs. others) weretested with linear regression models, accounting for school clustering. Data from 16 individual interviews (shy/inactive) and 11 focus groupswith 48 participants (mean = 4;range 2—7) were thematically coded. Qualitative and quantitative data were merged in an integrative mixedmethods convergence matrix, which denoted convergence and dissonance across datasets.Results'. Effect sizes for quantitative results were small and may not represent substantial between-group differences. Boys (vs. girls) preferredclass-based sessions (0 = 0.2, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.1—0.3);qualitative data suggested that this was because boys preferred competition,which was supported quantitatively (0 = 0.2, 95%CI: 0.1-0.3). Shy/inactive students did not enjoy the competition (0 = -0.3, 95%CI:—0.5 to —0.1). Boys enjoyed trying new activities more (0 = 0.1, 95%CI: 0.1 -0.2);qualitative data indicated a desire to try new activities acrossall subgroups but identified barriers to choosing unfamiliar activities with self-imposed choice restriction leading to boredom. Qualitative datahighlighted critique of mentorship;adolescents liked the idea, but older mentors did not meet expectations.Conclusion. We interpreted adolescent perspectives of intervention components and implementation to provide insights into future complexinterventions aimed at increasing young people's physical activity in school-based settings. The intervention component mentorship was liked inprinciple, but implementation issues undesirably impacted satisfaction;competition was disliked by girls and shy/inactive students. The resultshighlight the importance of considering gender differences in preference of competition and extensive mentorship training.