↓ Skip to main content

Process evaluation results of a cluster randomised controlled childhood obesity prevention trial: the WAVES study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
248 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Process evaluation results of a cluster randomised controlled childhood obesity prevention trial: the WAVES study
Published in
BMC Public Health, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4690-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

T. L. Griffin, J. L. Clarke, E. R. Lancashire, M. J. Pallan, P. Adab, On behalf of the WAVES study trial investigators

Abstract

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 248 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 248 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 15%
Student > Bachelor 29 12%
Researcher 17 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 6%
Other 43 17%
Unknown 91 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 45 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 44 18%
Sports and Recreations 18 7%
Social Sciences 8 3%
Psychology 7 3%
Other 31 13%
Unknown 95 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 February 2018.
All research outputs
#12,858,916
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#8,795
of 14,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,364
of 315,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#102
of 168 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,985 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,948 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 168 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.