Background

Regular physical activity, i.e., 150-300 minutes of moderate physical activity per-week, or 75-150 minutes of vigorous physical activity per-week (WHO, 2020) is beneficial for health and well-being (Biddle, Mutrie, & Gorely, 2015). More specifically, physical activity confers benefits for the following health outcomes: improved all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease mortality, incident hypertension, incident site-specific cancers, incident type-2 diabetes, mental and cognitive health (WHO, 2020). However, more than one-half of university students in the United States and Canada are not active enough to gain health benefits, and females, especially African-American ones, are among the least active students (Irwin, 2004). Moreover, many university students drop-out from organised sports and physical activities and are unlikely to undertake new active pursuits later in life (Telama, 2009). Based on current WHO (2020) recommendations, if adults are not meeting the suggested physical activity levels, doing some physical activity will benefit their health, and they should start by doing small amounts of physical activity, and gradually increase the frequency, intensity, and duration over time. Thus, the purpose of this study was to determine whether the evidenced-based physical activity programme Made2Move 3.0, based on Self-Determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) might increase physical activity levels among university students in one university in Ireland. This programme is a peer-led approach, which falls under the generic umbrella of interventions that are delivered in part or full by non-professionals who share similar characteristics, health conditions, or situations as the target population (Medvene, 1992). It is also a community-wide programme, which offers more than one approach to tackle physical inactivity for the university population as it operates at a series of levels to impact on behaviour (ISPAH, 2020). Similar programmes focus primarily on increasing general physical activity levels, and their effectiveness is small but consistent when compared to minimal intervention or no-treatment control arms (Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2018). Given their potential for lower costs, peer-led interventions may increase the likelihood of broad dissemination of PA promotion strategies and it is feasible for peer volunteers to be trained to deliver theory-driven interventions with adequate fidelity to ensure program success (Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee, 2018). This paper, therefore, tracks the innovation-journey of Made2Move 3.0.

Methodology The campus-wide Made2Move Club (first of its kind) was iterated using design thinking (Brown, 2008) in a four-phase data informed design sprint (Chambers, 2018) over a 24-month period, led by a Made2Move Coordinator. This study used a combination of purposive sampling to select both MoveMentors and MoveMentees. Purposive sampling is a non-random technique that allows a deliberate choice of a participant due to the qualities the participant possesses. Volunteer MoveMentors (n = 73) were encouraged to recruit their MoveMentees (n = 75) from within their social circle, which could include a classmate, housemate, friend or family member. The only requirement was that the MoveMentee was physically inactive and a university student. MoveMentors were trained during a 4-hour tutorial session in Planning for Physical Activity, Motivation Theory and Mentorship. Made2Move Club events included Made2Move Talks, Made2Move ‘Food for Thought’ programme and a Couch to 5k charity event. Furthermore, MoveMentors were awarded a digital badge for dedicating forty hours of their time volunteering on campus, supporting MoveMentees and completing a reflective report on their experience. The programme’s duration was 10 weeks. Data collection included: Open Profile Questionnaires (biographical information), Think and Do Tanks (for the MoveMentors) and Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q) and 7-week number of steps objective estimation with the use of an accelerometer-based smartphone application (for the MoveMentees). Data analysis comprised both descriptive and inferential statistics, as well as grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006).

Findings The success of the programme rested on whether MoveMentees reached +10,000 steps per day (Tudor-Locke & Bassett, 2004). The study showed that 94% of MoveMentees reached the daily step goal with 65% exceeding this threshold. There were five thematic findings: (i) Importance of consistent contact between the MoveMentor and MoveMentee; (ii) The creation of a physical activity plan and goal setting for the MoveMentee; (iii) The use of motivating and encouraging language; (iv) The positive experience of the Made2Move programme for the MoveMentor and the MoveMentee; (v) The importance of the Made2Move Club structure to give status to the club on campus and to formalise the programme. Conclusions and Implications The Made2Move programme findings confirmed that a physical activity intervention formulated using design thinking and based on Self-Determination theory (Deci and Ryan, 2000) is effective in behaviour change over a 10-week period. The findings illustrate the following: (i) a physically active MoveMentor with a caring disposition and leadership skills is the ideal MoveMentor for the programme; (ii) the already established relationship between the MoveMentor and the MoveMentee ensured an easy and trusting interaction; (iii) structured meetings between the MoveMentor and the MoveMentee supported the MoveMentee and helped them progress; and (iv) the motivational and mentoring training the MoveMentors received during their training was effective. In summary, findings confirmed that central to the success of Made2Move 3.0 is the provision of low cost, accessible, tailored to the individual and supportive physical activity opportunities, which are encapsulated in the Made2Move SERVICE Model (Chambers et al. 2019). And given this, it is clear that Made2Move links directly to the theme of ECER 2021 Conference - NW 18 Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research: Reconciling school-community and formal education.

Biddle, S. J. H., Mutrie, N., & Gorely, T. (2015). Psychology of physical activity: Determinants, well-being and interventions (3rd ed.) Oxon: Routledge. Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84-92. Chambers, F.C., Brennan, D.A, Adamakis, E., O’Sullivan, G. and Kellher, C. (2019). Community Made2Move. International Sport and Culture Association Move Congress, Budapest 16-19 Ocober Chambers, F. C. (ed.) (2018). Learning to mentor in sports coaching: A design thinking approach. Oxon, Ox: Routledge. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London: Sage. Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (2000) The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 11, No. 4 (2000), pp. 227-268 Irwin, J. D. (2004). Prevalence of university students' sufficient physical activity: a systematic review. Perceptual and motor skills, 98(3), 927-943. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.98.3.927-943 ISPAH (2020). ISPAH’s eight investments that work for physical activity. Retrieved online from https://www.ispah.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/English-Eight-Investments-That-Work-FINAL.pdf Goligorsky, D. (2012). “Empathy and Innovation: The IDEO Approach”: Lecture. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School. Medvene, L. (1992). Self-help groups, peer helping, and social comparison. In S. Spacapan and S. Oskamp (Eds.), Helping and being helped: Naturalistic studies (pp. 49-81). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee (2018). Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Scientific Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved online from https://health.gov/paguidelines/second-edition/report/pdf/PAG_Advisory_Committee_Report.pdf Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78. Telama, R. (2009). Tracking of physical activity from childhood to adulthood: a review. Obesity Facts, 2(3), 187-195. https://doi.org/10.1159/000222244 Tudor-Locke, C., & Bassett, D. R., Jr (2004). How many steps/day are enough? Preliminary pedometer indices for public health. Sports Medicine, 34(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200434010-00001 WHO (2020). Guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour: At a glance. Geneva: World Health Organization. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.