Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2019 Aug 29;19(1):1187.
doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-7493-7.

Process evaluation of the school-based Girls Active programme

Trish Gorely  1 , Deirdre M Harrington  2 , Danielle H Bodicoat  2   3 , Melanie J Davies  2   4   5 , Kamlesh Khunti  2   5   3 , Lauren B Sherar  6   7 , Rhiannon Tudor-Edwards  8 , Thomas Yates  2   4 , Charlotte L Edwardson  9   10
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Process evaluation of the school-based Girls Active programme

Trish Gorely et al. BMC Public Health. .

Abstract

Background: Girls Active is a physical activity programme, delivered in UK secondary schools, with the aim of increasing moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in girls aged 11-14 years. This study presents the process evaluation as part of a 14-month cluster randomised controlled trial designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Girls Active programme and which showed no difference in the primary outcome (MVPA at 14 months) between intervention and control arms.

Methods: Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from intervention schools over the course of the 14 month trial. Feedback forms and attendance records were completed at the end of all teacher and peer leader training and review days. At 7- and 14-months, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the lead Girls Active teacher in all intervention schools (n = 10) and staff from the intervention provider (n = 4) and hub school (n = 1). At 14 months, separate focus groups with peer leaders (n = 8 schools), girls who participated in the evaluation component of the trial (n = 8 schools), and a sample of boys (n = 6 schools) were conducted. All participants in the intervention schools were asked to complete an exit survey at 14 months. Teachers (intervention and control) completed a school environment questionnaire at baseline, 7- and 14-months.

Results: The Girls Active programme, i.e., the training and resources, appeared to be well received by teachers and pupils. Factors that may have contributed to the lack of effectiveness include: some initial uncertainty by teachers as to what to do following the initial training, a predominant focus on support activities (e.g., gathering opinions) rather than actual physical activity provision, and school-level constraints that impeded implementation.

Conclusions: Girls Active and what it was trying to achieve was valued by schools. The programme could be improved by providing greater guidance to teachers throughout, the setting of timelines, and providing formal training to peer leaders.

Trial registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN10688342 . Registered 12 January 2015.

Keywords: Adolescent female; Physical activity; Process evaluation; School-based intervention.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work, no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years and no competing interest related to this work. MJD and KK reports personal fees from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Servier, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Inc. and grants from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi-Aventis, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Janssen. Outside of the submitted work, JC reports grants from Public Health Wales. CLE reports grants from National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research during the conduct of the study and is an Associate Editor for BMC Public Health. RTE, DB, TG, DMH, LS and TY all have nothing to declare.

References

    1. Biddle SJH, Asare M. Physical activity and mental health in children and adolescents: a review of reviews. Br J Sports Med. 2011;45:886–895. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2011-090185. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Janssen I, LeBlanc AG. Systematic review of the health benefits of physical activity and fitness in school-aged children and youth. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010;7:1–16. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-7-40. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Department of Health . Start Active, Stay Active: A report on physical activity for health from the four home countries’ Chief Medical Officers. 2011.
    1. Hallal PC, Andersen LB, Bull FC, Guthold R, Haskell W, Ekelund U. Lancet physical activity series working group. Global physical activity levels: surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Lancet. 2012;380:247–257. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60646-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Farooq Mohammed Abdulaziz, Parkinson Kathryn N, Adamson Ashley J, Pearce Mark S, Reilly Jessica K, Hughes Adrienne R, Janssen Xanne, Basterfield Laura, Reilly John J. Timing of the decline in physical activity in childhood and adolescence: Gateshead Millennium Cohort Study. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2017;52(15):1002–1006. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096933. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types