Cargando…

Marathon Kids UK: study design and protocol for a mixed methods evaluation of a school-based running programme

INTRODUCTION: Schools are promising settings for physical activity promotion; however, they are complex and adaptive systems that can influence the quality of programme implementation. This paper presents an evaluation of a school-based running programme (Marathon Kids). The aims of this study are (...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chalkley, Anna E, Routen, Ash C, Harris, Jo P, Cale, Lorraine A, Gorely, Trish, Sherar, Lauren B
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5961579/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29764890
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022176
_version_ 1783324740030562304
author Chalkley, Anna E
Routen, Ash C
Harris, Jo P
Cale, Lorraine A
Gorely, Trish
Sherar, Lauren B
author_facet Chalkley, Anna E
Routen, Ash C
Harris, Jo P
Cale, Lorraine A
Gorely, Trish
Sherar, Lauren B
author_sort Chalkley, Anna E
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Schools are promising settings for physical activity promotion; however, they are complex and adaptive systems that can influence the quality of programme implementation. This paper presents an evaluation of a school-based running programme (Marathon Kids). The aims of this study are (1) to identify the processes by which schools implement the programme, (2) identify and explain the contextual factors affecting implementation and explications of effectiveness and (3) examine the relationship between the level of implementation and perceived outcomes. METHODS: Using a realist evaluation framework, a mixed method single-group before-and-after design, strengthened by multiple interim measurements, will be used. Year 5 (9–10 years old) pupils and their teachers will be recruited from six state-funded primary schools in Leicestershire, UK. Data will be collected once prior to implementation, at five discrete time points during implementation and twice following implementation. A weekly implementation log will also be used. At time point 1 (TP1) (September 2016), data on school environment, teacher and pupil characteristics will be collected. At TP1 and TP6 (July 2017), accelerometry, pupil self-reported physical activity and psychosocial data (eg, social support and intention to be active) will be collected. At TP2, TP3 and TP5 (January, March and June 2017), observations will be conducted. At TP2 and TP5, there will be teacher interviews and pupil focus groups. Follow-up teacher interviews will be conducted at TP7 and TP8 (October 2017 and March 2018) and pupil focus group at TP8. In addition, synthesised member checking will be conducted (June 2018) with a mixed sample of schools. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this study was obtained through Loughborough University Human Participants Ethics Subcommittee (R16-P032 & R16-P116). Findings will be disseminated via print, online media and dissemination events as well as practitioner and/or research journals.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5961579
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59615792018-05-30 Marathon Kids UK: study design and protocol for a mixed methods evaluation of a school-based running programme Chalkley, Anna E Routen, Ash C Harris, Jo P Cale, Lorraine A Gorely, Trish Sherar, Lauren B BMJ Open Public Health INTRODUCTION: Schools are promising settings for physical activity promotion; however, they are complex and adaptive systems that can influence the quality of programme implementation. This paper presents an evaluation of a school-based running programme (Marathon Kids). The aims of this study are (1) to identify the processes by which schools implement the programme, (2) identify and explain the contextual factors affecting implementation and explications of effectiveness and (3) examine the relationship between the level of implementation and perceived outcomes. METHODS: Using a realist evaluation framework, a mixed method single-group before-and-after design, strengthened by multiple interim measurements, will be used. Year 5 (9–10 years old) pupils and their teachers will be recruited from six state-funded primary schools in Leicestershire, UK. Data will be collected once prior to implementation, at five discrete time points during implementation and twice following implementation. A weekly implementation log will also be used. At time point 1 (TP1) (September 2016), data on school environment, teacher and pupil characteristics will be collected. At TP1 and TP6 (July 2017), accelerometry, pupil self-reported physical activity and psychosocial data (eg, social support and intention to be active) will be collected. At TP2, TP3 and TP5 (January, March and June 2017), observations will be conducted. At TP2 and TP5, there will be teacher interviews and pupil focus groups. Follow-up teacher interviews will be conducted at TP7 and TP8 (October 2017 and March 2018) and pupil focus group at TP8. In addition, synthesised member checking will be conducted (June 2018) with a mixed sample of schools. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this study was obtained through Loughborough University Human Participants Ethics Subcommittee (R16-P032 & R16-P116). Findings will be disseminated via print, online media and dissemination events as well as practitioner and/or research journals. BMJ Publishing Group 2018-05-14 /pmc/articles/PMC5961579/ /pubmed/29764890 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022176 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Public Health
Chalkley, Anna E
Routen, Ash C
Harris, Jo P
Cale, Lorraine A
Gorely, Trish
Sherar, Lauren B
Marathon Kids UK: study design and protocol for a mixed methods evaluation of a school-based running programme
title Marathon Kids UK: study design and protocol for a mixed methods evaluation of a school-based running programme
title_full Marathon Kids UK: study design and protocol for a mixed methods evaluation of a school-based running programme
title_fullStr Marathon Kids UK: study design and protocol for a mixed methods evaluation of a school-based running programme
title_full_unstemmed Marathon Kids UK: study design and protocol for a mixed methods evaluation of a school-based running programme
title_short Marathon Kids UK: study design and protocol for a mixed methods evaluation of a school-based running programme
title_sort marathon kids uk: study design and protocol for a mixed methods evaluation of a school-based running programme
topic Public Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5961579/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29764890
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022176
work_keys_str_mv AT chalkleyannae marathonkidsukstudydesignandprotocolforamixedmethodsevaluationofaschoolbasedrunningprogramme
AT routenashc marathonkidsukstudydesignandprotocolforamixedmethodsevaluationofaschoolbasedrunningprogramme
AT harrisjop marathonkidsukstudydesignandprotocolforamixedmethodsevaluationofaschoolbasedrunningprogramme
AT calelorrainea marathonkidsukstudydesignandprotocolforamixedmethodsevaluationofaschoolbasedrunningprogramme
AT gorelytrish marathonkidsukstudydesignandprotocolforamixedmethodsevaluationofaschoolbasedrunningprogramme
AT sherarlaurenb marathonkidsukstudydesignandprotocolforamixedmethodsevaluationofaschoolbasedrunningprogramme