Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

A retrospective qualitative evaluation of barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a school-based running programme

Authors: Anna E. Chalkley, Ash C. Routen, Jo P. Harris, Lorraine A. Cale, Trish Gorely, Lauren B. Sherar

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

There is growing interest in school-based interventions which deliver opportunities for additional physical activity time outside of physical education (PE). A practical and cost-effective approach may be school running programmes. Consequently, many school-based running initiatives are currently being implemented in a grass-roots style movement across the UK. However, research on the implementation of physical activity programmes in schools is notably underdeveloped. Therefore, this qualitative study aimed to better understand the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a running programme, Marathon Kids (MK), within primary schools in England.

Methods

Two sets of semi-structured interviews were conducted, the first with each of the three core members of staff responsible for MK, and the second with each of the MK school staff Champions from 20 primary schools. Also, nine focus groups were conducted with 55 pupils (6–10 years) from five of the schools; all were analysed using thematic analysis.

Results

Three themes were identified surrounding the barriers and facilitators to implementation: features of the programme (e.g. ethos and resources), school climate (e.g. culture; whole school engagement; PE and physical activity policies and goals; and physical environment) and programme implementation decisions (e.g. aspirations and planning and sustainability).

Conclusion

Findings suggest that the barriers and facilitators to implementation are wide-ranging and include programme, organisational and system-level factors. Collectively pointing towards the need for a preparation period before implementation to understand schools’ readiness to implement and context-specific factors, both regarding organisational capacity and programme specific capacity.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
A Key Stage is a stage of the state education system in England, Wales and Northern Ireland setting the educational knowledge expected of students at various ages. In primary schools, these include Key Stage 1, consisting of children in Years 1, 2 and 3 (children of five to seven years of age) and Key Stage 2, consisting of Years 4, 5 and 6 (children eight to11 years of age).
 
Literature
4.
go back to reference SHAPE America. Shape of the Nation 2016: Status of physical education in the USA; 2016. p. 143. SHAPE America. Shape of the Nation 2016: Status of physical education in the USA; 2016. p. 143.
5.
go back to reference Education A for P. Health Position Paper. 2015. Education A for P. Health Position Paper. 2015.
10.
go back to reference Routen AC, Johnston JP, Glazebrook C, Sherar LB. Teacher perceptions on the delivery and implementation of movement integration strategies: the CLASS PAL (physically active learning) Programme. Int J Educ Res. 2018;88:Mi:48–59.CrossRef Routen AC, Johnston JP, Glazebrook C, Sherar LB. Teacher perceptions on the delivery and implementation of movement integration strategies: the CLASS PAL (physically active learning) Programme. Int J Educ Res. 2018;88:Mi:48–59.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Carlson JA, Engelberg JK, Cain KL, Conway TL, Geremia C, Bonilla E, et al. Contextual factors related to implementation of classroom physical activity breaks. Transl Behav Med. 2017;7;3:581-92.CrossRef Carlson JA, Engelberg JK, Cain KL, Conway TL, Geremia C, Bonilla E, et al. Contextual factors related to implementation of classroom physical activity breaks. Transl Behav Med. 2017;7;3:581-92.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Forman SG, Olin SS, Hoagwood KE, Crowe M, Saka N. Evidence-based interventions in schools: developers’ views of implementation barriers and facilitators. Sch Ment Heal. 2009;1:26–36.CrossRef Forman SG, Olin SS, Hoagwood KE, Crowe M, Saka N. Evidence-based interventions in schools: developers’ views of implementation barriers and facilitators. Sch Ment Heal. 2009;1:26–36.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Schaap R, Bessems K, Otten R, Kremers S, Van Nassau F. Measuring implementation fidelity of school-based obesity prevention programmes: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2018;15:75. Schaap R, Bessems K, Otten R, Kremers S, Van Nassau F. Measuring implementation fidelity of school-based obesity prevention programmes: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2018;15:75.
24.
go back to reference Cresswell J, Piano VC. Designing and conducting mixed method research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2011. Cresswell J, Piano VC. Designing and conducting mixed method research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2011.
25.
go back to reference Patton M. Qualitative research and evaluation methods - integrating theory and practice. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2015. Patton M. Qualitative research and evaluation methods - integrating theory and practice. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2015.
26.
go back to reference Landsverk J, Hendricks BC, Chamberlain P, Palinkas L, Ogihara M, Czaja S, et al. Design and analysis in dissemination and implementation research. In: Dissemination and Implementation in Healthcare Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 225–61. Landsverk J, Hendricks BC, Chamberlain P, Palinkas L, Ogihara M, Czaja S, et al. Design and analysis in dissemination and implementation research. In: Dissemination and Implementation in Healthcare Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 225–61.
29.
go back to reference Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 4th ed. New York: Free Press; 1995. Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 4th ed. New York: Free Press; 1995.
31.
go back to reference Domitrovich CE, Pas ET, Bradshaw CP, Becker KD, Keperling JP, Embry DD, et al. Individual and school Organizational factors that influence implementation of the PAX good behavior game intervention. Prev Sci. 2015;16:1064–74.CrossRef Domitrovich CE, Pas ET, Bradshaw CP, Becker KD, Keperling JP, Embry DD, et al. Individual and school Organizational factors that influence implementation of the PAX good behavior game intervention. Prev Sci. 2015;16:1064–74.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Pitney W, Parker J. Qualitative research in physical activity and the health professions. Human Kinetics: Champaign; 2009. Pitney W, Parker J. Qualitative research in physical activity and the health professions. Human Kinetics: Champaign; 2009.
35.
go back to reference Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.CrossRef Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Fixsen DL, Naoom SF, Blase KA, Friedman RM, Wallace F. Implementation research: a synthesis of the literature. Components. 2005;311712:1–119. Fixsen DL, Naoom SF, Blase KA, Friedman RM, Wallace F. Implementation research: a synthesis of the literature. Components. 2005;311712:1–119.
41.
go back to reference ASCD and C for DC and P. Whole school, whole child, whole community: a collaborative approach to learning and health. Alexandria; 2014. ASCD and C for DC and P. Whole school, whole child, whole community: a collaborative approach to learning and health. Alexandria; 2014.
43.
go back to reference Lendrum A, Humphrey N. The importance of studying the implementation of interventions in school settings. Oxf Rev Educ. 2012;38:635–52.CrossRef Lendrum A, Humphrey N. The importance of studying the implementation of interventions in school settings. Oxf Rev Educ. 2012;38:635–52.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
A retrospective qualitative evaluation of barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a school-based running programme
Authors
Anna E. Chalkley
Ash C. Routen
Jo P. Harris
Lorraine A. Cale
Trish Gorely
Lauren B. Sherar
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6078-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Public Health 1/2018 Go to the issue