» Articles » PMID: 32701954

Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness of the GoActive Intervention to Increase Physical Activity Among UK Adolescents: A cluster Randomised Controlled Trial

Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

The effectiveness of secondary-school based interventions on the future physical activity of adolescents in Aotearoa New Zealand: a modelling study.

Bergen T, Richards J, Kira G, Kim A, Signal L, Mizdrak A Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2024; 21(1):114.

PMID: 39375727 PMC: 11460133. DOI: 10.1186/s12966-024-01653-z.


DE-PASS best evidence statement (BESt): determinants of adolescents' device-based physical activity and sedentary behaviour in settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Kolovelonis A, Syrmpas I, Marcuzzi A, Khudair M, Ng K, Tempest G BMC Public Health. 2024; 24(1):1706.

PMID: 38926707 PMC: 11202347. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-024-19136-y.


Effectiveness of Intervention Strategies to Increase Adolescents' Physical Activity and Reduce Sedentary Time in Secondary School Settings, Including Factors Related to Implementation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Contardo Ayala A, Parker K, Mazzoli E, Lander N, Ridgers N, Timperio A Sports Med Open. 2024; 10(1):25.

PMID: 38472550 PMC: 10933250. DOI: 10.1186/s40798-024-00688-7.


Accelerometer-measured 24-hour movement behaviours over 7 days in Malaysian children and adolescents: A cross-sectional study.

Brady S, Salway R, Mariapun J, Millard L, Ramadas A, Rizal H PLoS One. 2024; 19(2):e0297102.

PMID: 38377079 PMC: 10878504. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297102.


Total and temporal patterning of physical activity in adolescents and associations with mental wellbeing.

Alshallal A, Alliott O, Brage S, van Sluijs E, Wilkinson P, Corder K Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2024; 21(1):5.

PMID: 38191365 PMC: 10775671. DOI: 10.1186/s12966-023-01553-8.


References
1.
Johnson M, Bhopal R, Ingleby J, Gruer L, Petrova-Benedict R . A glossary for the first World Congress on Migration, Ethnicity, Race and Health. Public Health. 2019; 172:85-88. DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.05.001. View

2.
Collings P, Wijndaele K, Corder K, Westgate K, Ridgway C, Dunn V . Levels and patterns of objectively-measured physical activity volume and intensity distribution in UK adolescents: the ROOTS study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014; 11:23. PMC: 3936923. DOI: 10.1186/1479-5868-11-23. View

3.
White I, Carpenter J, Horton N . Including all individuals is not enough: lessons for intention-to-treat analysis. Clin Trials. 2012; 9(4):396-407. PMC: 3428470. DOI: 10.1177/1740774512450098. View

4.
Jong S, Croxson C, Guell C, Lawlor E, Foubister C, Brown H . Adolescents' perspectives on a school-based physical activity intervention: A mixed method study. J Sport Health Sci. 2020; 9(1):28-40. PMC: 6943775. DOI: 10.1016/j.jshs.2019.06.007. View

5.
Shochet I, Dadds M, Holland D, Whitefield K, Harnett P, Osgarby S . The efficacy of a universal school-based program to prevent adolescent depression. J Clin Child Psychol. 2001; 30(3):303-15. DOI: 10.1207/S15374424JCCP3003_3. View