Features of effective staff training programmes within school-based interventions targeting student activity behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Features of effective staff training programmes within school-based interventions targeting student activity behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
复制标题
针对学生活动行为的基于学校干预措施中有效的员工培训计划的特征：系统评价和荟萃分析。
DOI：
10.1186/s12966-022-01361-6
复制
发表时间：
2022-09-24
影响因子：
8.7
通讯作者：
van Sluijs, Esther
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ryan, Mairead;Alliott, Olivia;Ikeda, Erika;Luan, Jian'an;Hofmann, Riikka;van Sluijs, Esther
基于学校的活动行为干预的评估表明，对学生设备测量结果的有效性有限。教师主导的实施很常见，但所提供的培训理解不足，可能会影响实施和学生的成果。我们系统地回顾了在干预措施中提供的员工培训，并探讨了干预措施的保真度和学生活动行为结果是否与特定特征相关。我们检索了7个数据库（2015年1月- 2020年5月），寻找教师主导的基于学校的活动行为干预的随机对照试验，这些试验报告了教师忠诚和/或学生设备测量的活动行为。不包括试点、可行性和小规模试验。如果没有使用干预描述和复制报告指南模板中的所有项目描述员工培训，则联系研究作者。培训计划采用行为改变技术（BCT）分类法v1进行编码。使用有效公共卫生实践项目工具进行质量评估。承诺比率用于探索bct与保真度结果（例如预期会话交付的百分比）之间的关联。使用卡方检验和Wilcoxon秩和检验来探讨保真度结果与其他训练特征之间的差异。采用随机效应元回归来探索训练特征与学生活动行为变化之间的关联。我们确定了68篇报道53个合格培训项目的文章，并发现了37个独特的以教师为目标的bct被使用的证据（每个项目的平均值= 5.1个bct；标准差= 3.2）。唯一经常被确定的btc是“如何执行行为的指导”（在98.1%的计划中确定）和“社会支持（未指明）”（50.9%）。我们发现，与低保真度研究相比，中等/高保真度研究更可能包括较短（≤6个月）和理论知情的项目，19个bct与中等/高保真度结果独立相关。使用更多BCT的方案（估计每增加一个BCT增加，d: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.05, 0.31）和BCT的“行动计划”（1.40;0.70,2.10）和“行为反馈”（1.19;0.36,2.02）与积极的身体活动结果独立相关（N = 15）。未发现与久坐行为相关的训练特征（N = 11）。在以学校为基础的活动行为干预中，很少有基于证据的BCTs被用于促进教师之间持续的行为改变。我们的发现为为什么干预措施可能无法影响学生的成绩提供了见解。普洛斯彼罗注册号：CRD42020180624在线版本包含补充资料，可在10.1186/s12966-022-01361-6获得。
Evaluations of school-based activity behaviour interventions suggest limited effectiveness on students’ device-measured outcomes. Teacher-led implementation is common but the training provided is poorly understood and may affect implementation and student outcomes. We systematically reviewed staff training delivered within interventions and explored if specific features are associated with intervention fidelity and student activity behaviour outcomes. We searched seven databases (January 2015–May 2020) for randomised controlled trials of teacher-led school-based activity behaviour interventions reporting on teacher fidelity and/or students’ device-measured activity behaviour. Pilot, feasibility and small-scale trials were excluded. Study authors were contacted if staff training was not described using all items from the Template for Intervention Description and Replication reporting guideline. Training programmes were coded using the Behaviour Change Technique (BCT) Taxonomy v1. The Effective Public Health Practice Project tool was used for quality assessment. Promise ratios were used to explore associations between BCTs and fidelity outcomes (e.g. % of intended sessions delivered). Differences between fidelity outcomes and other training features were explored using chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Random-effects meta-regressions were performed to explore associations between training features and changes in students’ activity behaviour. We identified 68 articles reporting on 53 eligible training programmes and found evidence that 37 unique teacher-targeted BCTs have been used (mean per programme = 5.1 BCTs; standard deviation = 3.2). The only frequently identified BCTs were ‘Instruction on how to perform the behaviour’ (identified in 98.1% of programmes) and ‘Social support (unspecified)’ (50.9%). We found moderate/high fidelity studies were significantly more likely to include shorter (≤6 months) and theory-informed programmes than low fidelity studies, and 19 BCTs were independently associated with moderate/high fidelity outcomes. Programmes that used more BCTs (estimated increase per additional BCT, d: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.05, 0.31) and BCTs ‘Action planning’ (1.40; 0.70, 2.10) and ‘Feedback on the behaviour’ (1.19; 0.36, 2.02) were independently associated with positive physical activity outcomes (N = 15). No training features associated with sedentary behaviour were identified (N = 11). Few evidence-based BCTs have been used to promote sustained behaviour change amongst teachers in school-based activity behaviour interventions. Our findings provide insights into why interventions may be failing to effect student outcomes. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020180624 The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12966-022-01361-6.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.k211
发表时间：
2018-02-07
期刊：
BMJ (Clinical research ed.)
影响因子：
--
作者：
Adab P;Pallan MJ;Lancashire ER;Hemming K;Frew E;Barrett T;Bhopal R;Cade JE;Canaway A;Clarke JL;Daley A;Deeks JJ;Duda JL;Ekelund U;Gill P;Griffin T;McGee E;Hurley K;Martin J;Parry J;Passmore S;Cheng KK
通讯作者：
Cheng KK
群集随机控制儿童肥胖预防试验的过程评估结果：WAVES研究。
影响因子：
4.5
作者：
Griffin TL;Clarke JL;Lancashire ER;Pallan MJ;Adab P;WAVES study trial investigators
通讯作者：
WAVES study trial investigators
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Belton, Sarahjane;McCarren, Andrew;Issartel, Johann
通讯作者：
Issartel, Johann
影响因子：
3.4
作者：
Cohen, Kristen E.;Morgan, Philip J.;Lubans, David R.
通讯作者：
Lubans, David R.
影响因子：
4.1
作者：
Ha, Amy S.;Lonsdale, Chris;Ng, Johan Y. Y.
通讯作者：
Ng, Johan Y. Y.