Is level of implementation linked with intervention outcomes? Process evaluation of the TransformUs intervention to increase children’s physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour

Table 2 Teacher intervention fidelity and dose delivered (dichotomous outcomes) at T3 and T4

Intervention component	T3					T4
	N	Yes (%)	Intervention group			N	Yes (%)	Intervention group
			PA-I	SB-I	SB + PA-I			PA-I	SB-I	SB + PA-I
			Yes (%)	Yes (%)	Yes (%)			Yes (%)	Yes (%)	Yes (%)
*Teacher fidelity*			Max N = 24	Max N = 13	Max N = 24			Max N = 41	Max N = 14	Max N = 23
Delivered all nine key messages?	59	31	41	31	21	53	26	33	0	25
Delivered all nine key messages without adaptation?	47	15	8	11	29	35	9	7	29	0
Delivered one standing lesson p/day?	33	30	–	17	38	36	56	–	64	50
Children completed active breaks?	34	56	–	25	73	35	66	–	83	57
Sports equipment was available during recess/lunch?	45	96	96	–	96	48	58	76	–	96
Used sports equipment during class time?	42	81	65	–	96	46	89	88	–	91
Signage promoted physical activity during recess/lunch?	44	91	91	–	91	51	43	33	–	57
Used line markings during class time?	42	60	60	–	59	54	72	69	–	77
Set active/standing homework?	46	65	82	80	42	66	39	49	42	24
*Teacher dose delivered*			Max N = 22	Max N = 13	Max N = 24			Max N = 48	Max N = 14	Max N = 27
Used sports equipment during class time ≥ once/wk.?	36	58	40	–	71	42	67	62	–	71
Used line markings during class time ≥ once/wk.?	27	52	39	–	64	41	54	50	–	58
Active/standing homework delivered ≥once/wk.?	57	19	30	21	9	89	15	10	21	19

Total N and N Yes = Intervention groups combined. PA-I Physical activity intervention group, SB-I Sedentary behaviour intervention group, SB + PA-I=Combined physical activity and sedentary behaviour group. T3: 18-months (Nov-Dec 2011). T4: 30-months (Nov-Dec 2012). Inferential analyses were not conducted between groups due to small cell sizes
^aData relates to teacher weekly lesson evaluations at 2010 and 2011

ISSN: 1479-5868