Incentivising public transport use for physical activity gain: process evaluation of the COVID-19 disrupted trips4health randomised controlled trial.
Behaviour and behaviour mechanisms
Disease outbreaks
Exercise
Motivation
Preventive health services
Public-private sector partnerships
Translational medical research
Transportation facilities
Walking
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:
22 12 2022
22 12 2022
Historique:
received:
30
05
2022
accepted:
01
12
2022
entrez:
22
12
2022
pubmed:
23
12
2022
medline:
27
12
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Partnering with a public transport (PT) provider, state government, and local government, the single-blinded randomised controlled trial, trips4health, investigated the impact of PT use incentives on transport-related physical activity (PA) in Tasmania, Australia. The intervention involved 16-weeks of incentives (bus trip credits) for achieving weekly PT use targets, supported by weekly text messages. This study objective was to conduct a process evaluation of the COVID-19 disrupted trips4health study. The Medical Research Council UK's framework for complex public health interventions guided the process evaluation. Participant reach, acceptability, fidelity and feasibility were evaluated. Administrative and post-intervention survey data were analysed descriptively. Semi-structured interviews with intervention participants (n = 7) and PT provider staff (n = 4) were analysed thematically. Due to COVID-19, trips4health was placed on hold (March 2020) then stopped (May 2020) as social restrictions impacted PT use. At study cessation, 116 participants (approximately one third of target sample) had completed baseline measures, 110 were randomised, and 64 (n = 29 in the intervention group; n = 35 in the control group) completed post-intervention measures. Participants were 18 - 80 years (average 44.5 years) with females (69%) and those with tertiary education (55%) over-represented. The intervention was delivered with high fidelity with 96% of bus trip credits and 99% of behavioural text messages sent as intended. Interviewed PT staff said implementation was highly feasible. Intervention participant acceptability was high with 90% reporting bus trip incentives were helpful and 59% reporting the incentives motivated them to use PT more. From a total of 666 possible bus trip targets, 56% were met with 38% of intervention participants agreeing and 41% disagreeing that 'Meeting the bus trip targets was easy'. Interviews and open-ended survey responses from intervention participants revealed incentives motivated bus use but social (e.g., household member commitments) and systemic (e.g., bus availability) factors made meeting bus trip targets challenging. trips4health demonstrated good acceptability and strong fidelity and feasibility. Future intervention studies incentivising PT use will need to ensure a broader demographic is reached and include more supports to meet PT targets. ACTRN12619001136190 .
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Partnering with a public transport (PT) provider, state government, and local government, the single-blinded randomised controlled trial, trips4health, investigated the impact of PT use incentives on transport-related physical activity (PA) in Tasmania, Australia. The intervention involved 16-weeks of incentives (bus trip credits) for achieving weekly PT use targets, supported by weekly text messages. This study objective was to conduct a process evaluation of the COVID-19 disrupted trips4health study.
METHODS
The Medical Research Council UK's framework for complex public health interventions guided the process evaluation. Participant reach, acceptability, fidelity and feasibility were evaluated. Administrative and post-intervention survey data were analysed descriptively. Semi-structured interviews with intervention participants (n = 7) and PT provider staff (n = 4) were analysed thematically.
RESULTS
Due to COVID-19, trips4health was placed on hold (March 2020) then stopped (May 2020) as social restrictions impacted PT use. At study cessation, 116 participants (approximately one third of target sample) had completed baseline measures, 110 were randomised, and 64 (n = 29 in the intervention group; n = 35 in the control group) completed post-intervention measures. Participants were 18 - 80 years (average 44.5 years) with females (69%) and those with tertiary education (55%) over-represented. The intervention was delivered with high fidelity with 96% of bus trip credits and 99% of behavioural text messages sent as intended. Interviewed PT staff said implementation was highly feasible. Intervention participant acceptability was high with 90% reporting bus trip incentives were helpful and 59% reporting the incentives motivated them to use PT more. From a total of 666 possible bus trip targets, 56% were met with 38% of intervention participants agreeing and 41% disagreeing that 'Meeting the bus trip targets was easy'. Interviews and open-ended survey responses from intervention participants revealed incentives motivated bus use but social (e.g., household member commitments) and systemic (e.g., bus availability) factors made meeting bus trip targets challenging.
CONCLUSIONS
trips4health demonstrated good acceptability and strong fidelity and feasibility. Future intervention studies incentivising PT use will need to ensure a broader demographic is reached and include more supports to meet PT targets.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ACTRN12619001136190 .
Identifiants
pubmed: 36550500
doi: 10.1186/s12966-022-01394-x
pii: 10.1186/s12966-022-01394-x
pmc: PMC9772596
doi:
Banques de données
ANZCTR
['ACTRN12619001136190']
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
157Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
Am J Prev Med. 2005 Nov;29(4):273-80
pubmed: 16242589
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015 Dec;69(12):1217-23
pubmed: 26243197
Am J Prev Med. 2012 Dec;43(6):e45-57
pubmed: 23159264
BMJ. 2015 Mar 19;350:h1258
pubmed: 25791983
Health Promot J Austr. 2020 Sep;31(3):504-517
pubmed: 31483904
Trials. 2020 Nov 9;21(1):916
pubmed: 33168067
Prev Med. 2015 Jun;75:75-85
pubmed: 25843244
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2012 Jul;9(7):2454-78
pubmed: 22851954
Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2020 Jul 15;19:100619
pubmed: 32775761
Am J Health Promot. 2021 Feb;35(2):236-249
pubmed: 32672050
Br J Sports Med. 2020 Nov;54(21):1259-1268
pubmed: 31092399
Behav Med. 2017 Apr-Jun;43(2):79-90
pubmed: 26431076
Aust N Z J Public Health. 2017 Dec;41(6):617-624
pubmed: 28749561
Health Psychol. 2013 Aug;32(8):829-38
pubmed: 23477577
Am J Public Health. 2013 Mar;103(3):536-42
pubmed: 23327281
J Biomed Inform. 2019 Jul;95:103208
pubmed: 31078660
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Mar 25;14:42
pubmed: 24669751