Abstract
The adoption of school-based running programs has rapidly increased over the last five years in the UK and globally. However, there is currently a lack of information on how these initiatives are implemented, and whether they are generalizable and/or sustainable. This study evaluated the implementation (including reach, fidelity, and dose) of a school-based running program over seven months to inform future delivery. This observational study used a mixed-method, single-group, before-and-after design strengthened by multiple interim measurements to evaluate the implementation of an optional school-based running program. Five state-funded primary schools in Leicestershire, UK, participated, with 17 teachers and 189 (81 boys (47.4%) and 90 girls (52.6%)) Year 5 pupils (aged 9–10 years) from eight classes. During the 2016/2017 academic year, data were collected via several measures (including interviews, focus groups, observations, questionnaires, and teacher implementation logs) at multiple levels (i.e., school and individual) and at multiple time points during implementation. Follow up qualitative data were also collected during 2017/2018. The school-based running program achieved good reach, with 100% of pupils opting to participate at some point during the academic year. All schools implemented the program with good fidelity, although the level of implementation varied between schools and over time. The average number of sessions held per week ranged from 0.94–3.89 with the average distance accumulated per pupil per week ranging from 0.02 to 2.91 kilometers and boys being more likely than girls to be classed as high-level participators. Despite an initial drop off in participation over time, all schools remained engaged in the program and continued to implement it until the end of the school year. Contextual features (e.g., staff capacity and resources) differed between schools and influenced the quality of implementation and the frequency of delivery. The school-based running program is simple, inexpensive, and versatile and can be implemented by schools with relative ease. However, schools are diverse settings, with unique challenges to ongoing delivery. Thus, planned adaptations, specific to each school’s context, are likely necessary to sustain participation in the longer term and should be considered prior to implementation.
Highlights
School-based running programs typically encourage children to be active during the school day by providing opportunities for pupils to walk and/or run around a marked route in the school grounds for a period of time (e.g., 15 min) [1].Grassroots support for school-based running programs has rapidly increased in recent years [2] and many are being implemented as a pragmatic ‘solution’ to rising levels of childhood obesity, poor levels of fitness, and inactivity [3]
In the United Kingdom (UK), political cross-sector commitment for running programs was reinforced by the 2019 cross-government School Sport and Physical Activity Action Plan [6], which advocated the use of active mile initiatives to establish physical activity as an integral part of the school day
A recent systematic review with meta-analysis found that school-based interventions had a moderate effect on physical activity during the school day, but this was not reflected in increases in physical activity across the whole day [9]
Summary
Grassroots support for school-based running programs has rapidly increased in recent years [2] and many are being implemented as a pragmatic ‘solution’ to rising levels of childhood obesity, poor levels of fitness, and inactivity [3]. In the United Kingdom (UK), political cross-sector commitment for running programs was reinforced by the 2019 cross-government School Sport and Physical Activity Action Plan [6], which advocated the use of active mile initiatives to establish physical activity as an integral part of the school day. A recent systematic review with meta-analysis found that school-based interventions had a moderate effect on physical activity during the school day, but this was not reflected in increases in physical activity across the whole day [9]. Possible explanations are that intervention components were not effective and/or they were not implemented appropriately
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
