Scale-up of the Internet-based Professional Learning to help teachers promote Activity in Youth (iPLAY) intervention: a hybrid type 3 implementation-effectiveness trial.
Journal
The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity
ISSN: 1479-5868
Titre abrégé: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101217089
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 12 2022
01 12 2022
Historique:
received:
03
05
2022
accepted:
06
10
2022
entrez:
30
11
2022
pubmed:
1
12
2022
medline:
3
12
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Whole-of-school programs have demonstrated success in improving student physical activity levels, but few have progressed beyond efficacy testing to implementation at-scale. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the scale-up of the 'Internet-based Professional Learning to help teachers promote Activity in Youth' (iPLAY) intervention in primary schools using the RE-AIM framework. We conducted a type 3 hybrid implementation-effectiveness study and collected data between April 2016 and June 2021, in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. RE-AIM was operationalised as: (i) Reach: Number and representativeness of students exposed to iPLAY; (ii) Effectiveness: Impact of iPLAY in a sub-sample of students (n = 5,959); (iii) Adoption: Number and representativeness of schools that received iPLAY; (iv) Implementation: Extent to which the three curricular and three non-curricular components of iPLAY were delivered as intended; (v) Maintenance: Extent to which iPLAY was sustained in schools. We conducted 43 semi-structured interviews with teachers (n = 14), leaders (n = 19), and principals (n = 10) from 18 schools (11 from urban and 7 from rural locations) to determine program maintenance. Reach: iPLAY reached ~ 31,000 students from a variety of socio-economic strata (35% of students were in the bottom quartile, almost half in the middle two quartiles, and 20% in the top quartile). We observed small positive intervention effects for enjoyment of PE/sport (0.12 units, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.20, d = 0.17), perceptions of need support from teachers (0.26 units, 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.53, d = 0.40), physical activity participation (0.28 units, 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.47, d = 0.14), and subjective well-being (0.82 units, 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.32, d = 0.12) at 24-months. Adoption: 115 schools received iPLAY. Most schools implemented the curricular (59%) and non-curricular (55%) strategies as intended. Maintenance: Based on our qualitative data, changes in teacher practices and school culture resulting from iPLAY were sustained. iPLAY had extensive reach and adoption in NSW primary schools. Most of the schools implemented iPLAY as intended and effectiveness data suggest the positive effects observed in our cluster RCT were sustained when the intervention was delivered at-scale. ACTRN12621001132831.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Whole-of-school programs have demonstrated success in improving student physical activity levels, but few have progressed beyond efficacy testing to implementation at-scale. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the scale-up of the 'Internet-based Professional Learning to help teachers promote Activity in Youth' (iPLAY) intervention in primary schools using the RE-AIM framework.
METHODS
We conducted a type 3 hybrid implementation-effectiveness study and collected data between April 2016 and June 2021, in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. RE-AIM was operationalised as: (i) Reach: Number and representativeness of students exposed to iPLAY; (ii) Effectiveness: Impact of iPLAY in a sub-sample of students (n = 5,959); (iii) Adoption: Number and representativeness of schools that received iPLAY; (iv) Implementation: Extent to which the three curricular and three non-curricular components of iPLAY were delivered as intended; (v) Maintenance: Extent to which iPLAY was sustained in schools. We conducted 43 semi-structured interviews with teachers (n = 14), leaders (n = 19), and principals (n = 10) from 18 schools (11 from urban and 7 from rural locations) to determine program maintenance.
RESULTS
Reach: iPLAY reached ~ 31,000 students from a variety of socio-economic strata (35% of students were in the bottom quartile, almost half in the middle two quartiles, and 20% in the top quartile).
EFFECTIVENESS
We observed small positive intervention effects for enjoyment of PE/sport (0.12 units, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.20, d = 0.17), perceptions of need support from teachers (0.26 units, 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.53, d = 0.40), physical activity participation (0.28 units, 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.47, d = 0.14), and subjective well-being (0.82 units, 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.32, d = 0.12) at 24-months. Adoption: 115 schools received iPLAY.
IMPLEMENTATION
Most schools implemented the curricular (59%) and non-curricular (55%) strategies as intended. Maintenance: Based on our qualitative data, changes in teacher practices and school culture resulting from iPLAY were sustained.
CONCLUSIONS
iPLAY had extensive reach and adoption in NSW primary schools. Most of the schools implemented iPLAY as intended and effectiveness data suggest the positive effects observed in our cluster RCT were sustained when the intervention was delivered at-scale.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ACTRN12621001132831.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36451168
doi: 10.1186/s12966-022-01371-4
pii: 10.1186/s12966-022-01371-4
pmc: PMC9713961
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
141Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Adv Nurs. 2008 Apr;62(1):107-15
pubmed: 18352969
Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2015 Jan-Feb;57(4):368-74
pubmed: 25269062
J Phys Act Health. 2018 Nov 1;15(S2):S251-S273
pubmed: 30475137
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021 Sep 8;18(1):122
pubmed: 34496861
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2019 Nov 7;16(1):102
pubmed: 31699095
JAMA Pediatr. 2021 Jul 1;175(7):680-688
pubmed: 33938946
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2022 Aug 20;19(1):106
pubmed: 35987776
BMC Public Health. 2019 Dec 3;19(1):1619
pubmed: 31795995
BMC Public Health. 2016 Aug 24;16(1):873
pubmed: 27557641
BMC Public Health. 2012 Jun 12;12:427
pubmed: 22691451
Br J Sports Med. 2015 Feb;49(4):210-8
pubmed: 25312876
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2015 Apr;47(4):765-74
pubmed: 25051389
BMJ. 2021 Jan 18;372:m3721
pubmed: 33461967
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017 Feb 23;14(1):24
pubmed: 28231794
Int J Public Health. 2009 Sep;54 Suppl 2:140-50
pubmed: 19639259
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020 Feb 11;17(1):19
pubmed: 32046735
Clin Trials. 2012 Aug;9(4):396-407
pubmed: 22752633
Lancet. 2012 Jul 21;380(9838):294-305
pubmed: 22818941
Obes Rev. 2021 Jul;22(7):e13184
pubmed: 33527738
Implement Sci. 2013 Oct 02;8:117
pubmed: 24088228
Lancet. 2016 Sep 24;388(10051):1337-48
pubmed: 27475273
J Sci Med Sport. 2012 Mar;15(2):136-41
pubmed: 22051688
Sch Psychol Q. 2014 Jun;29(2):213-232
pubmed: 24933218
Implement Sci. 2009 Aug 07;4:50
pubmed: 19664226
Med Care. 2012 Mar;50(3):217-26
pubmed: 22310560
Am J Prev Med. 2017 Dec;53(6):818-828
pubmed: 29051015
Res Q Exerc Sport. 1989 Mar;60(1):48-58
pubmed: 2489825
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020 Aug 8;17(1):100
pubmed: 32771011
BMJ. 2017 Mar 6;356:i6795
pubmed: 28264797
Am J Health Promot. 2009 Mar-Apr;23(4):229-32
pubmed: 19288843
J Phys Act Health. 2021 May 14;18(6):625-630
pubmed: 33984836
Am J Public Health. 1999 Sep;89(9):1322-7
pubmed: 10474547
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020 Nov 26;17(1):141
pubmed: 33239009
Circulation. 2020 Aug 18;142(7):e101-e118
pubmed: 32686505
Health Promot Int. 2013 Sep;28(3):285-98
pubmed: 22241853
Front Public Health. 2019 Mar 29;7:64
pubmed: 30984733
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021 Jan 22;18(1):16
pubmed: 33482837
J Public Health Manag Pract. 2001 Mar;7(2):90-100
pubmed: 12174404
Implement Sci. 2012 Apr 18;7:32
pubmed: 22512914
Lancet. 2021 Jul 31;398(10298):429-442
pubmed: 34302767