What works best when implementing a physical activity intervention for teenagers? Reflections from the ACTIVE Project: a qualitative study

• Published in: BMJ open 2019-05, Vol.9 (5), p.e025618-e025618
• Main Authors: James, Michaela, Christian, Danielle, Scott, Samantha, Todd, Charlotte, Stratton, Gareth, Demmler, Joanne, McCoubrey, Sarah, Halcox, Julian, Audrey, Suzanne, Ellins, Elizabeth A, Irvine, Elizabeth, Brophy, Sinead
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adolescent Behavior - psychology; Childrens health; Councils; Exercise; Feasibility studies; Female; Focus Groups; Health Promotion - methods; Humans; Incentives; Intervention; Male; Mentoring; Monetary incentives; Motivation; Obesity; Peer Group; Physical fitness; Program Evaluation; Public Health; Qualitative Research; School effectiveness; Smoking; Sports; Students - psychology; Success; Systematic review; Teenagers; Wales - epidemiology
• ISSN: 2044-6055; 2044-6055
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025618

ObjectiveThis paper explores what aspects of a multicomponent intervention were deemed strengths and weaknesses by teenagers and the local council when promoting physical activity to young people.DesignQualitative findings at 12 months from a mixed method randomised control trial.MethodsActive Children Through Incentive Vouchers—Evaluation (ACTIVE) gave teenagers £20 of activity enabling vouchers every month for a year. Peer mentors were also trained and a support worker worked with teenagers to improve knowledge of what was available. Semistructured focus groups took place at 12 months to assess strengths and weaknesses of the intervention. Eight focus groups (n=64 participants) took place with teenagers and one additional focus group was dedicated to the local council’s sport development team (n=8 participants). Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.ResultsTeenagers used the vouchers on three main activities: trampolining, laser tag or the water park. These appeal to both genders, are social, fun and require no prior skill or training. Choice and financial support for teenagers in deprived areas was considered a strength by teenagers and the local council. Teenagers did not engage with a trained peer mentor but the support worker was considered helpful.ConclusionsThe ACTIVE Project’s delivery had both strengths and weakness that could be used to underpin future physical activity promotion. Future interventions should focus on improving access to low cost, fun, unstructured and social activities rather than structured organised exercise/sport. The lessons learnt from this project can help bridge the gap between what is promoted to teenagers and what they actually want from activity provision.Trial registration number ISRCTN75594310