Process evaluation results of a cluster randomised controlled childhood obesity prevention trial: the WAVES study.
Process evaluation results of a cluster randomised controlled childhood obesity prevention trial: the WAVES study.
复制标题
群集随机控制儿童肥胖预防试验的过程评估结果：WAVES研究。
DOI：
10.1186/s12889-017-4690-0
复制
发表时间：
2017-08-29
影响因子：
4.5
通讯作者：
WAVES study trial investigators
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Griffin TL;Clarke JL;Lancashire ER;Pallan MJ;Adab P;WAVES study trial investigators
儿童肥胖及其相关后果的日益普遍强调了制定和评估旨在预防的干预措施的重要性。过程评估在健康干预研究中的重要性越来越被认可，评估实施和参与者的反应，以及这些如何与干预的成功或失败有关。西米德兰兹郡的ActiVe生活方式和健康饮食在学校儿童（WAVES）的研究，测试肥胖预防计划的有效性为6-7岁的儿童，在24所英国学校提供了一个全面的过程评估设计和进行。四个干预组成部分是：额外的每日在校时间的身体活动（PA）;烹饪讲习班的儿童和家长;别墅活力（VV），一个为期6周的健康生活方式促进方案，由当地足球俱乐部运行;和路标，以当地PA的机会。通过问卷、日志、直接观察、焦点小组和访谈收集了与六个维度（忠诚度、覆盖范围、招募、质量、参与者响应性、背景）相关的数据。多种数据收集方法允许数据三角测量和验证方法，比较研究观察与教师记录。开发了6阶段WAVES研究模型（（i）数据收集，（ii）整理，（iii）制表，（iv）分数分配和讨论，（v）咨询，（vi）最终分数分配），以指导过程评估数据的收集，同化和分析。两名研究人员独立分配学校成绩的5点李克特规模为每个过程评估方面。研究人员随后讨论了学校的分数分配，并达成了共识。学校按总分排名，并分组以反映低，中或高干预措施的实施。干预措施得到了很好的实施，并受到教师、家长和儿童的欢迎。PA组件被确定为最具挑战性，VV最少。各学校的平均实施得分为56/75（IQR，51.0 - 60.8）。教师日志和研究人员的意见之间的协议普遍较高，主要的差异发生在会议持续时间报告，在某些情况下，教师的估计往往高于研究人员的。WAVES研究模型提供了一个严格的和可复制的方法来进行和分析一个多组成部分的过程评价。已经确定了实施以学校为基础的肥胖预防干预措施的挑战，这些挑战可以用于为未来的试验提供信息。 ISRCTN97000586。2010年5月19日。本文的在线版本（10.1186/s12889-017-4690-0）包含补充材料，可供授权用户使用。
Increasing prevalence of childhood obesity and its related consequences emphasises the importance of developing and evaluating interventions aimed at prevention. The importance of process evaluation in health intervention research is increasingly recognised, assessing implementation and participant response, and how these may relate to intervention success or failure. A comprehensive process evaluation was designed and undertaken for the West Midlands ActiVe lifestyle and healthy Eating in School children (WAVES) study that tested the effectiveness of an obesity prevention programme for children aged 6-7 years, delivered in 24 UK schools. The four intervention components were: additional daily school-time physical activity (PA); cooking workshops for children and parents; Villa Vitality (VV), a 6-week healthy lifestyle promotion programme run by a local football club; and signposting to local PA opportunities. Data relating to six dimensions (Fidelity, Reach, Recruitment, Quality, Participant Responsiveness, Context) were collected via questionnaires, logbooks, direct observations, focus groups and interviews. Multiple data collection methods allowed for data triangulation and validation of methods, comparing research observations with teacher records. The 6-stage WAVES study model ((i) Data collection, (ii) Collation, (iii) Tabulation, (iv) Score allocation and discussion, (v) Consultation, (vi) Final score allocation) was developed to guide the collection, assimilation and analysis of process evaluation data. Two researchers independently allocated school scores on a 5-point Likert scale for each process evaluation dimension. Researchers then discussed school score allocations and reached a consensus. Schools were ranked by total score, and grouped to reflect low, medium or high intervention implementation. The intervention was predominantly well-implemented and well-received by teachers, parents and children. The PA component was identified as the most challenging, VV the least. Median implementation score across schools was 56/75 (IQR, 51.0 - 60.8). Agreement between teacher logbooks and researcher observations was generally high, the main discrepancies occurred in session duration reporting where in some cases teachers’ estimations tended to be higher than researchers’. The WAVES study model provides a rigorous and replicable approach to undertaking and analysing a multi-component process evaluation. Challenges to implementing school-based obesity prevention interventions have been identified which can be used to inform future trials. ISRCTN97000586. 19 May 2010. The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-017-4690-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.h1258
发表时间：
2015-03-19
期刊：
BMJ (Clinical research ed.)
影响因子：
--
作者：
Moore GF;Audrey S;Barker M;Bond L;Bonell C;Hardeman W;Moore L;O'Cathain A;Tinati T;Wight D;Baird J
通讯作者：
Baird J
影响因子：
4.2
作者：
Baranowski, T;Stables, G
通讯作者：
Stables, G
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
Christian, Meaghan S.;Evans, Charlotte E. L.;Cade, Janet E.
通讯作者：
Cade, Janet E.
影响因子：
5.1
作者：
Pallan, Miranda;Parry, Jayne;Adab, Peymane
通讯作者：
Adab, Peymane
影响因子：
1.3
作者：
Griffin, Tania L.;Clarke, Joanne L.;Adab, Peymane
通讯作者：
Adab, Peymane