A Process Evaluation of a School Based Physical Activity for Health Intervention in East London

Author(s):

Symeon Dagkas(presenting / submitting)Whitney Curry Marcia Wilson

Conference:

ECER 2015

Network:

08. Research on Health Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

08 SES 05 A, Physical Activity in Schools - Evaluation Challenges

Paper Session

Time:

2015-09-09

11:00-12:30

Room:

108.Oktatóterem [C]

Chair:

Monica Carlsson

Contribution

Background information

PE and Sport (PES) in school is the main societal institution for the development of physical skills and the provision of Physical Activity (PA) and health in children and young people (Bailey, 2013). For many children and young people, school is the main environment for being physically active, through either PES programmes or after-school activities (Fox, et al., 2004). There is evidence that for a growing number of children and young people, school provides the main opportunity for regular, structured PA for health as a combination of economic pressures, socio-environmental barriers and parental concerns means that fewer children are able to play games in non-school settings. Moreover, school-based PA offers a regulated opportunity for usually qualified, accountable teachers and coaches to introduce physical activities and lifestyle skills and knowledge in a structured way to all children and young people, within a safe and supportive environment (Fox, et al., 2004). In addition, school and sport clubs partnerships can enhance the physical development of young people by targeting physical, cognitive, affective, social and overall (healthy) lifestyle of young people (Eime, et. al., 2013).

Study Information

The NECaSP programme is a case series intervention targeting Year 7 (11-13 year olds) students from 18 secondary schools in the Newham borough of East London. The intervention included 3 phases: 1) an introductory day in schools that included the opportunity for students to try out a range of sport and activities with coaches from local sport clubs, 2) a one-day coaching session at the University of East London leisure centre where students were coached on 5 sports, and 3) alteration of PE curriculum with the opportunity for students to engage in a 6-week after school programme on a sport of their choosing delivered by coaches from local sports clubs.

Research Question and Aims

The aim of this paper is two fold a) to report on a multi-method process evaluation of the Newham Every Child a Sport Person (NECaSP) programme and b) to present the findings of the process evaluation for future implementation of programmes aiming at increasing PA through sport to young people from diverse deprived backgrounds

Theoretical background

A systematic framework was used to evaluate the intervention’s delivery quantity, quality and overall evaluation of the intervention by participants, parents and teachers (Wall, 2005). The programme was evaluated by examining the expectations, awareness of the programme and recommendations for improvements by participants, parents, and teachers. Additionally, socio-demographic data (age, sex, Index of Multiple Deprivation, self-reported ethnicity) was collected as part of an outcome evaluation of the programme and included in this analysis.

Method

Methods and analysis 1,497 Year 7 (aged 11-13) young people from 7 secondary schools in East London participated in the study alongside 295 parents and 15 PE and head teachers. Socio-demographic and anthropometric data was obtained. Students completed a pre-intervention (baseline) questionnaire that included questions on their expectations of the NECaSP programme as well as a post-intervention (follow-up) questionnaire on their perceived gains from the programme. Parents of Year 7 students completed a questionnaire including questions on their awareness of the programme, their perception of the effectiveness of the programme, and improvements to future implementation. PE teachers were asked to complete a questionnaire giving their opinions on the quality of service from the intervention staff, effectiveness of the programme, and any improvements for future implementation. Means, standard deviations and percentages were calculated for socio-demographic data. T-tests and ANOVAs were conducted to determine significant differences between baseline (pre-questionnaire) and follow-up (post-questionnaire) socio-demographic data. McNemar Chi-square tests were used to determine if there were any significant differences between pre- and post-questionnaire responses to expectations and perceived gains questions. Parent and teacher questionnaires were analysed via directed content analysis and main themes identified. All statistical analyses were conducted in PASW v21 Results and discussion Overall, the process evaluation revealed that the quality of the NECaSP programme was very good. Main findings on quality indicate that the target participants (Year 7 students) were able to participate in all activities during the programme provided that their school agreed to participate. The only barrier to student participation was during the 6-week curriculum in Phase 3. Teachers reported that some schools were unable to accommodate all students who wanted to participate in the 6-week programme, limiting which students could attend. Shorter after school sessions throughout the school term are recommended to accommodate all participants (Fox et al., 2004). Communication between stakeholders, sports clubs, schools and also participants was another area requiring improvement. Moreover, improved communication with parents on the aims, goals and delivery of the NECaSP programme is recommended. Previous research has found that parental knowledge and participation in similar interventions has improved the PA and sport participation of children (Jago, et al., 2011).

Expected Outcomes

Conclusions One of the major goals of the NECaSP intervention was to increase participation in PA for health and sports amongst Year 7 students. While the achievement of this goal is important, it is critical that the components of the intervention are practical and easily implemented. As a unique school-based intervention that employed community-based strategies, the challenges identified in this study are not unique to the NECaSP programme and have been identified in other PA interventions (Gibson et al., 2008). This process evaluation has identified that further administrative, educational and financial support will help facilitate the success of the programme and its goals for adolescents in East London, and of any other similar school-based intervention programme globally. The evaluation highlighted the need to engage parents with the intervention at early stages to increase likelihood of success in terms of increasing PA and sport participation in young people. Furthermore it has provided a clear framework for future school based interventions targeting hard to reach populations and those experiencing axes of disadvantaged such as social class, ethnicity, race, environment (Curry, et al., 2015). Finally the evaluation has highlighted that changes in the school curriculum can be successful once all parties are involved (community, school, families, Fox et al., 2004) and also stressed the fact that young people are interested in sports outside those offered in the formal PE syllabi.

References

Bailey, R., Hillman, C., Arent, S., Petitpas, A. (2013). Physical activity as an investment in personal and social change. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 10, 289-308. Curry, W.B., Dagkas, S., Wilson, M. (2015) Evaluation of a school-based intervention to promote physical activity and sport among young people aged 11-13 in East London, UK. Journal of Sports Science. In press. Eime, R.M., Young, J.A., Harvey, J.T., Charity, M.J., Payne, W.R. (2013) A systematic review of the psychological and social benefits of participation in sport for children and adolescents: informing development of a conceptual model of health through sport. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10, 98-119. Fox, K. Cooper, A., McKenna, J. (2004) The school and promotion of children’s health enhancing physical activity: Perspectives from the United Kingdom. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 23, 338-358 Gibson, C.A., Smith, B.K., DuBose, K.D., Greene, J.L., Bailey, B.W., Williams, S.L., Ryan, J.J., Schmelzle, K.H., Washburn, R.A., Sullivan, D.K., Mayo, M.S., Donnelly, J.E. (2008) Physical activity across the curriculum: year one process evaluation results. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 5, 36-46. Jago, R., Thompson, J.L., Page, A.S., Brockman, R., Cartwright, K., Fow, K.R. (2009) Licence to be active: parental concerns and 10-11-year-old children's ability to be independently physically active. Journal of Public Health, 31(4), 472-477. Taylor-Powell, E. (1996) Program development and evaluation, collecting evaluation data: direct observation. University of Wisconsin, Madison. Wall, J. E. (2005) Program evaluation model 9-step process. The Health Communication Unit: University of Toronto, Toronto.

Author Information

Symeon Dagkas (presenting / submitting)

University of East London

Health Sport and Biosciences

London

Whitney Curry

University of East London, United Kingdom

Marcia Wilson