Process evaluation of the Walk Well study: a cluster-randomised controlled trial of a community based walking programme for adults with intellectual disabilities

Lynsay Matthews, Fiona Mitchell, Kirsten Stalker, Alex McConnachie, Heather Murray, Chris Melling, Nanette Mutrie, Craig Melville

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Walking interventions can be effective in encouraging sedentary populations to become more active; however, limited research has explored the effectiveness of walking interventions for adults with intellectual disabilities. This process evaluation explored the delivery of a community based walking intervention for adults with intellectual disabilities. Methods: Walk Well was a single-blind cluster randomised controlled trial of a 12-week physical activity consultation-led walking intervention. 102 participants were randomised to the Walk Well intervention or a waiting list control group. Participants in the intervention group received three physical activity consultations with a walking advisor at baseline, 6 & 12-weeks. They were encouraged to use a pedometer to set goals and monitor their daily step count. Primary outcome was change in daily step count at 12-weeks. Process evaluation measures included qualitative interviews with key stakeholders (n = 6) and quantifiable data collected as part of the intervention. Additional process data were extracted from a sub-set of qualitative interviews with participants and carers (n = 20). Data were analysed for process information related to context, recruitment and retention, reach, implementation, and fidelity. Results: Walk Well was not effective in significantly increasing levels of physical activity. The process evaluation did, however, highlight several important areas for consideration in future studies, including: a successful recruitment and retention strategy reaching a representative sample of adults with intellectual disabilities in the community; feasible and (for most) enjoyable methods of engaging adults with intellectual disabilities in activities to support behaviour change; potential need for greater intervention duration and frequency of contact; advantages and disadvantages of using pedometers as a behaviour change tool; the need for strategies which engage carers in supporting participants; and the complex issue of ‘freedom of choice’ in relation to lifestyle behaviours and study participation. Conclusions: Walking interventions for adults with intellectual disabilities can be feasibly delivered in the community in relation to reach, recruitment, retention and intervention fidelity. More intensive intervention methods need to be explored as well as strategies to engage and motivate carers in their support of participants.
LanguageEnglish
Article number527
Number of pages11
JournalBMC Public Health
Volume16
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 7 Jul 2016

Fingerprint

Intellectual Disability
Walking
Randomized Controlled Trials
Caregivers
Exercise
Referral and Consultation
Community-Institutional Relations
Interviews
Process Assessment (Health Care)
Waiting Lists
Life Style
Control Groups
Research
Population

Keywords

  • walking intervention
  • intellectual disabilities
  • process evaluation
  • physical activity
  • walking
  • behaviour change
  • pedometers
  • andomised-controlled trial

Cite this

Matthews, Lynsay ; Mitchell, Fiona ; Stalker, Kirsten ; McConnachie, Alex ; Murray, Heather ; Melling, Chris ; Mutrie, Nanette ; Melville, Craig. / Process evaluation of the Walk Well study : a cluster-randomised controlled trial of a community based walking programme for adults with intellectual disabilities. In: BMC Public Health. 2016 ; Vol. 16.
@article{ff1c5a6e7a994ec3a2e21c2d63357c83,
title = "Process evaluation of the Walk Well study: a cluster-randomised controlled trial of a community based walking programme for adults with intellectual disabilities",
abstract = "Background: Walking interventions can be effective in encouraging sedentary populations to become more active; however, limited research has explored the effectiveness of walking interventions for adults with intellectual disabilities. This process evaluation explored the delivery of a community based walking intervention for adults with intellectual disabilities. Methods: Walk Well was a single-blind cluster randomised controlled trial of a 12-week physical activity consultation-led walking intervention. 102 participants were randomised to the Walk Well intervention or a waiting list control group. Participants in the intervention group received three physical activity consultations with a walking advisor at baseline, 6 & 12-weeks. They were encouraged to use a pedometer to set goals and monitor their daily step count. Primary outcome was change in daily step count at 12-weeks. Process evaluation measures included qualitative interviews with key stakeholders (n = 6) and quantifiable data collected as part of the intervention. Additional process data were extracted from a sub-set of qualitative interviews with participants and carers (n = 20). Data were analysed for process information related to context, recruitment and retention, reach, implementation, and fidelity. Results: Walk Well was not effective in significantly increasing levels of physical activity. The process evaluation did, however, highlight several important areas for consideration in future studies, including: a successful recruitment and retention strategy reaching a representative sample of adults with intellectual disabilities in the community; feasible and (for most) enjoyable methods of engaging adults with intellectual disabilities in activities to support behaviour change; potential need for greater intervention duration and frequency of contact; advantages and disadvantages of using pedometers as a behaviour change tool; the need for strategies which engage carers in supporting participants; and the complex issue of ‘freedom of choice’ in relation to lifestyle behaviours and study participation. Conclusions: Walking interventions for adults with intellectual disabilities can be feasibly delivered in the community in relation to reach, recruitment, retention and intervention fidelity. More intensive intervention methods need to be explored as well as strategies to engage and motivate carers in their support of participants.",
keywords = "walking intervention, intellectual disabilities , process evaluation, physical activity, walking, behaviour change, pedometers, andomised-controlled trial",
author = "Lynsay Matthews and Fiona Mitchell and Kirsten Stalker and Alex McConnachie and Heather Murray and Chris Melling and Nanette Mutrie and Craig Melville",
year = "2016",
month = "7",
day = "7",
doi = "10.1186/s12889-016-3179-6",
language = "English",
volume = "16",
journal = "BMC Public Health",
issn = "1471-2458",

}

Process evaluation of the Walk Well study : a cluster-randomised controlled trial of a community based walking programme for adults with intellectual disabilities. / Matthews, Lynsay; Mitchell, Fiona; Stalker, Kirsten; McConnachie, Alex; Murray, Heather; Melling, Chris ; Mutrie, Nanette; Melville, Craig.

In: BMC Public Health, Vol. 16, 527, 07.07.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Process evaluation of the Walk Well study

T2 - BMC Public Health

AU - Matthews, Lynsay

AU - Mitchell, Fiona

AU - Stalker, Kirsten

AU - McConnachie, Alex

AU - Murray, Heather

AU - Melling, Chris

AU - Mutrie, Nanette

AU - Melville, Craig

PY - 2016/7/7

Y1 - 2016/7/7

N2 - Background: Walking interventions can be effective in encouraging sedentary populations to become more active; however, limited research has explored the effectiveness of walking interventions for adults with intellectual disabilities. This process evaluation explored the delivery of a community based walking intervention for adults with intellectual disabilities. Methods: Walk Well was a single-blind cluster randomised controlled trial of a 12-week physical activity consultation-led walking intervention. 102 participants were randomised to the Walk Well intervention or a waiting list control group. Participants in the intervention group received three physical activity consultations with a walking advisor at baseline, 6 & 12-weeks. They were encouraged to use a pedometer to set goals and monitor their daily step count. Primary outcome was change in daily step count at 12-weeks. Process evaluation measures included qualitative interviews with key stakeholders (n = 6) and quantifiable data collected as part of the intervention. Additional process data were extracted from a sub-set of qualitative interviews with participants and carers (n = 20). Data were analysed for process information related to context, recruitment and retention, reach, implementation, and fidelity. Results: Walk Well was not effective in significantly increasing levels of physical activity. The process evaluation did, however, highlight several important areas for consideration in future studies, including: a successful recruitment and retention strategy reaching a representative sample of adults with intellectual disabilities in the community; feasible and (for most) enjoyable methods of engaging adults with intellectual disabilities in activities to support behaviour change; potential need for greater intervention duration and frequency of contact; advantages and disadvantages of using pedometers as a behaviour change tool; the need for strategies which engage carers in supporting participants; and the complex issue of ‘freedom of choice’ in relation to lifestyle behaviours and study participation. Conclusions: Walking interventions for adults with intellectual disabilities can be feasibly delivered in the community in relation to reach, recruitment, retention and intervention fidelity. More intensive intervention methods need to be explored as well as strategies to engage and motivate carers in their support of participants.

AB - Background: Walking interventions can be effective in encouraging sedentary populations to become more active; however, limited research has explored the effectiveness of walking interventions for adults with intellectual disabilities. This process evaluation explored the delivery of a community based walking intervention for adults with intellectual disabilities. Methods: Walk Well was a single-blind cluster randomised controlled trial of a 12-week physical activity consultation-led walking intervention. 102 participants were randomised to the Walk Well intervention or a waiting list control group. Participants in the intervention group received three physical activity consultations with a walking advisor at baseline, 6 & 12-weeks. They were encouraged to use a pedometer to set goals and monitor their daily step count. Primary outcome was change in daily step count at 12-weeks. Process evaluation measures included qualitative interviews with key stakeholders (n = 6) and quantifiable data collected as part of the intervention. Additional process data were extracted from a sub-set of qualitative interviews with participants and carers (n = 20). Data were analysed for process information related to context, recruitment and retention, reach, implementation, and fidelity. Results: Walk Well was not effective in significantly increasing levels of physical activity. The process evaluation did, however, highlight several important areas for consideration in future studies, including: a successful recruitment and retention strategy reaching a representative sample of adults with intellectual disabilities in the community; feasible and (for most) enjoyable methods of engaging adults with intellectual disabilities in activities to support behaviour change; potential need for greater intervention duration and frequency of contact; advantages and disadvantages of using pedometers as a behaviour change tool; the need for strategies which engage carers in supporting participants; and the complex issue of ‘freedom of choice’ in relation to lifestyle behaviours and study participation. Conclusions: Walking interventions for adults with intellectual disabilities can be feasibly delivered in the community in relation to reach, recruitment, retention and intervention fidelity. More intensive intervention methods need to be explored as well as strategies to engage and motivate carers in their support of participants.

KW - walking intervention

KW - intellectual disabilities

KW - process evaluation

KW - physical activity

KW - walking

KW - behaviour change

KW - pedometers

KW - andomised-controlled trial

U2 - 10.1186/s12889-016-3179-6

DO - 10.1186/s12889-016-3179-6

M3 - Article

VL - 16

JO - BMC Public Health

JF - BMC Public Health

SN - 1471-2458

M1 - 527

ER -