| Literature DB >> 27097646 |
S J Sebire1, M J Edwards2, J M Kesten2, T May2, K J Banfield2, E L Bird3, K Tomkinson4, P Blair4, J E Powell3, R Jago2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Bristol Girls Dance Project was a cluster randomised controlled trial that aimed to increase objectively measured moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) levels of Year 7 (age 11-12) girls through a dance-based after-school intervention. The intervention was delivered in nine schools and consisted of up to forty after-school dance sessions. This paper reports on the main findings from the detailed process evaluation that was conducted.Entities:
Keywords: Adolescent; Dance; Girls; Physical activity intervention; Process evaluation; Secondary school
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27097646 PMCID: PMC4839166 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-016-3010-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Description of how the qualitative component addressed features of trustworthiness criteria
| Trustworthiness feature | Description |
|---|---|
| Credibility (internal validity) | Familiarity and rapport between the interviewer (JMK), dance instructors and participants was developed over four visits to each school. By observing dance sessions an understanding of the content and delivery was established. This insight informed the refinement of interview guides and may have encouraged honesty in the interviews. Researcher bias in the selection of participants was minimised by a random selection of focus group participants by attendance. Views from all intervention schools were gathered. During analysis, frequent study team de-briefings ensured different interpretations of data were considered. |
| Transferability (external validity) and dependability (reliability) | Findings should be understood within the study context. However, if similar findings are elicited in different schools or interventions, this could demonstrate a degree of transferability. By providing in-depth details of the methods we ensure that the study is repeatable. |
| Confirmability (Objectivity) | Researchers (JMK, SJS, TM, MJE) worked to ensure that the findings reflected the experiences of participants. SJS and RJ developed the project and SJS uses SDT in his research. JMK attended four dance sessions within each school and became familiar with each school setting. Therefore this may have influenced her interpretation of qualitative information. TM did not perform any school visits and does not have a background in SDT. Therefore he was able to assume a role of checking that interpretations reflected the data. |
Categories of implementation and receipt of intervention in the Active 7 process evaluation
| Implementation | Receipt of intervention |
|---|---|
| Intervention dose and attendance | Enjoyment |
| Understanding high attendance | Exertion |
| Reaching those who needed the intervention most | Perceived health, well-being, and psychological benefits |
| Impact of attendance on intervention delivery | Intentions to continue dancing |
| Dance instructor training | |
| Fidelity to the intervention manual |
Fig. 1Attendance per dance session across all intervention schools
Fig. 2Self-reported reasons for not attending Active7 sessions
Fig. 3Fidelity to the intervention manual over the course of the intervention
Fig. 4Mean perceived enjoyment per school during the intervention
Fig. 5Mean perceived exertion levels per school on four occasions during the intervention