Feasibility study and pilot cluster-randomised controlled trial of the GoActive intervention aiming to promote physical activity among adolescents: outcomes and lessons learnt

OBJECTIVES: Assess the feasibility of implementing the GoActive intervention in secondary schools, to identify improvements, test study procedures, determine preliminary effectiveness to increase moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), and inform power calculations to establish programme effectiveness. SETTING: Feasibility study (1 school) and pilot cluster-randomised controlled trial (CRCT; 2 intervention; 1 control school(s)). PARTICIPANTS: 460 participants (46.6% female; 13.2 (0.4) years old). INTERVENTIONS: 8-week intervention (2013) involved: classes choosing weekly activities encouraged by mentors (older adolescents) and in-class peer leaders. Students gain points for trying activities which are entered into an intramural competition. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Planned quantitative (questionnaire) and qualitative (focus groups) process evaluation addressed enjoyment, confidence, participation, suggested improvements. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and follow-up (week 8) in pilot CRCT and included accelerometer-assessed MVPA; adolescent-reported activity type, well-being, peer support, shyness, sociability. Analysis of covariance was used to assess preliminary effectiveness as change in MVPA adjusted for baseline. RESULTS: All year 9 students in intervention schools were exposed to the intervention; over all schools 77% of eligible students were measured. 71% boys and 74% girls found GoActive ‘fun’; 38% boys and 32% girls said it increased confidence, and 64% boys and 59% girls said they would continue with a GoActive activity. Suggested improvements included more mentorship; improved training; streamlined points recording. Pilot results indicated potential effectiveness ((adjusted mean difference (95% CI) p value; MVPA mins; 5.1 (1.1 to 9.2) p=0.014)) and suggest recruitment of 16 schools (2400 adolescents) for a full trial. Compared with control, intervention students reported greater peer support 0.5 (0.1 to 0.9) p=0.03, well-being 1.8 (0.1 to 3.4) p=0.04 but no difference in shyness/sociability. Participation in activity types approached significance (intervention group 2.3 (−0.2 to 4.7) p=0.07 more activity types). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest feasibility and indicate potential effectiveness of GoActive to increase MVPA and support a fully powered evaluation of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Process evaluation data were used to refine GoActive prior to a full trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN31583496; pre-results.