What works best when implementing a physical activity intervention for teenagers? Reflections from the ACTIVE Project: a qualitative study.
Michaela James, Danielle Christian, Samantha Scott, Charlotte Todd, Gareth Stratton, Joanne Demmler, Sarah McCoubrey, Julian Halcox, Suzanne Audrey, Elizabeth A Ellins, Elizabeth Irvine, Sinead Brophy
Author Information
Michaela James: College of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Danielle Christian: Department of Sport and Physical Activity, Edgehill University, Ormskirk, UK.
Samantha Scott: College of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Charlotte Todd: College of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Gareth Stratton: College of Engineering, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Joanne Demmler: College of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Sarah McCoubrey: Active Young People Department, City and County of Swansea, Swansea, UK.
Julian Halcox: College of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Suzanne Audrey: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Elizabeth A Ellins: Institute of Life Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Elizabeth Irvine: College of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Sinead Brophy: College of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
OBJECTIVE: This 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. DESIGN: Qualitative findings at 12 months from a mixed method randomised control trial. METHODS: Active 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. RESULTS: Teenagers 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. CONCLUSIONS: The 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.
