Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the GoActive intervention to increase physical activity among UK adolescents: A cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Less than 20% of adolescents globally meet recommended levels of physical activity, and not meeting these recommended levels is associated with social disadvantage and rising disease risk. The determinants of physical activity in adolescents are multilevel and poorly understood, but the school's social environment likely plays an important role. We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of a school-based programme (GoActive) to increase moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) among adolescents. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Non-fee-paying, co-educational schools including Year 9 students in the UK counties of Cambridgeshire and Essex were eligible for inclusion. Within participating schools (n = 16), all Year 9 students were eligible and invited to participate. Participants were 2,862 13- to 14-year-olds (84% of eligible students). After baseline assessment, schools were computer-randomised, stratified by school-level pupil premium funding (below/above county-specific median) and county (control: 8 schools, 1,319 participants, mean [SD] participants per school n = 165 [62]; intervention: 8 schools, 1,543 participants, n = 193 [43]). Measurement staff were blinded to allocation. The iteratively developed, feasibility-tested 12-week intervention, aligned with self-determination theory, trained older adolescent mentors and in-class peer-leaders to encourage classes to conduct 2 new weekly activities. Students and classes gained points and rewards for engaging in any activity in or out of school. The primary outcome was average daily minutes of accelerometer-assessed MVPA at 10-month follow-up; a mixed-methods process evaluation evaluated implementation. Of 2,862 recruited participants (52.1% male), 2,167 (76%) attended 10-month follow-up measurements; we analysed the primary outcome for 1,874 participants (65.5%). At 10 months, there was a mean (SD) decrease in MVPA of 8.3 (19.3) minutes in the control group and 10.4 (22.7) minutes in the intervention group (baseline-adjusted difference [95% confidence interval] -1.91 minutes [-5.53 to 1.70], p = 0.316). The programme cost £13 per student compared with control; it was not cost-effective. Overall, 62.9% of students and 87.3% of mentors reported that GoActive was fun. Teachers and mentors commented that their roles in programme delivery were unclear. Implementation fidelity was low. The main methodological limitation of this study was the relatively affluent and ethnically homogeneous sample. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that a rigorously developed school-based intervention was no more effective than standard school practice at preventing declines in adolescent physical activity. Interdisciplinary research is required to understand educational-setting-specific implementation challenges. School leaders and authorities should be realistic about expectations of the effect of school-based physical activity promotion strategies implemented at scale. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN31583496.

Physical Activity Duration but Not Energy Expenditure Differs between Daily and Intermittent Breakfast Consumption in Adolescent Girls: A Randomized Crossover Trial.

Background: It is not known whether breakfast frequency affects physical activity (PA) in children or adolescents. Objective: This study examined the effect of daily compared with intermittent breakfast consumption on estimated PA energy expenditure (PAEE) in adolescent girls. Methods: Under a randomized crossover design, 27 girls [mean ± SD age: 12.4 ± 0.5 y, body mass index (in kg/m2): 19.3 ± 3.0] completed two 7-d conditions. A standardized breakfast (∼1674 kJ) was consumed every day before 0900 in the daily breakfast consumption (DBC) condition. The standardized breakfast was consumed on only 3 d before 0900 in the intermittent breakfast consumption (IBC) condition, alternating with breakfast omission on the remaining 4 d (i.e., only water consumed before 1030). Combined heart rate accelerometry was used to estimate PAEE throughout each condition. Statistical analyses were completed by using condition × time of day repeated-measures ANOVA. The primary outcome was PAEE and the secondary outcome was time spent in PA. Results: Daily estimated PAEE from sedentary or light-, moderate-, or vigorous-intensity PA and total PAEE were not significantly different between the conditions. The condition × time of day interaction for sedentary time (P = 0.05) indicated that the girls spent an additional 11.5 min/d being sedentary in the IBC condition compared with the DBC condition from 1530 to bedtime (P = 0.04). Light PA was 19.8 min/d longer in the DBC condition than in the IBC condition (P = 0.05), which was accumulated from waking to 1030 (P = 0.04) and from 1530 to bedtime (P = 0.03). There were no significant differences in time spent in moderate PA or vigorous PA between the conditions. Conclusions: Adolescent girls spent more time in light PA before 1030 and after school and spent less time sedentary after school when a standardized breakfast was consumed daily than when consumed intermittently across 7 d. However, breakfast manipulation did not affect estimated daily PAEE. This trial was registered at www.isrctn.com as ISRCTN74579070.

Adolescents' perspectives on a school-based physical activity intervention: A mixed method study.

Purpose: To examine adolescent experiences and perspectives of the GoActive intervention (ISRCTN31583496) using mixed methods process evaluation to determine satisfaction with intervention components and interpret adolescents' experiences of the intervention process in order to provide insights for future intervention design. Methods: Participants (n = 1542; 13.2 ±  0.4 years, mean ± 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) were tested with linear regression models, accounting for school clustering. Data from 16 individual interviews (shy/inactive) and 11 focus groups with 48 participants (mean = 4; range 2-7) were thematically coded. Qualitative and quantitative data were merged in an integrative mixed methods 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) preferred class-based sessions (ß = 0.2, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.1-0.3); qualitative data suggested that this was because boys preferred competition, which was supported quantitatively (ß = 0.2, 95%CI: 0.1-0.3). Shy/inactive students did not enjoy the competition (ß = -0.3, 95%CI: -0.5 to -0.1). Boys enjoyed trying new activities more (ß = 0.1, 95%CI: 0.1-0.2); qualitative data indicated a desire to try new activities across all subgroups but identified barriers to choosing unfamiliar activities with self-imposed choice restriction leading to boredom. Qualitative data highlighted 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 complex interventions aimed at increasing young people's physical activity in school-based settings. The intervention component mentorship was liked in principle, but implementation issues undesirably impacted satisfaction; competition was disliked by girls and shy/inactive students. The results highlight the importance of considering gender differences in preference of competition and extensive mentorship training.

Reach, Recruitment, Dose, and Intervention Fidelity of the GoActive School-Based Physical Activity Intervention in the UK: A Mixed-Methods Process Evaluation.

School-based multi-component physical activity (PA) promotion is advocated; however, research has indicated that a multi-component approach may not always be effective at increasing adolescent PA. Evaluation of the GoActive 12-week multi-component school-based intervention showed no effect on adolescent PA. A mixed-methods process evaluation was embedded to facilitate greater understanding of the results, to elicit subgroup perceptions, and to provide insight into contextual factors influencing intervention implementation. This paper presents the reach, recruitment, dose, and fidelity of GoActive, and identifies challenges to implementation. The process evaluation employed questionnaires (1543 Year 9s), individual interviews (16 Year 9s; 7 facilitators; 9 contact teachers), focus groups (48 Year 9s; 58 mentors), alongside GoActive website analytics and researcher observations. GoActive sessions reached 39.4% of Year 9s. Intervention satisfaction was relatively high for mentors (87.3%) and facilitators (85.7%), but lower for Year 9s (59.5%) and teachers (50%). Intervention fidelity was mixed within and between schools. Mentorship was the most implemented component. Factors potentially contributing to low implementation included ambiguity of the roles subgroups played within intervention delivery, Year 9 engagement, institutional support, and further school-level constraints. Multiple challenges and varying contextual considerations hindered the implementation of GoActive in multiple school sites. Methods to overcome contextual challenges to implementation warrant in-depth consideration and innovative approaches.