Search

Abstract Background Increasing physical activity in older adults remains a key public health priority in countries with a high burden of non-communicable disease, yet current interventions have failed to substantially increase population uptake with UK data suggesting that only half of 65–74 year olds report meeting recommended levels. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic and inductive qualitative synthesis of the large body of qualitative research describing what influences physical activity at this age, and older adults’ experiences of physical activity. Methods A qualitative meta-ethnography was chosen as the study design as this inductive approach can provide novel insights and generate new theory about physical activity and ageing. Papers were identified by searching electronic databases and key citations. Peer-reviewed primary qualitative studies and systematic reviews were included if they met the following inclusion criteria: community-dwelling participants aged 60 years or older or in the retirement transition period; reporting on leisure-time physical activity; utilising a rigorous qualitative methodology. A line of argument approach was employed to generate a theory about how older adults think and feel about physical activity. Results Thirty-nine papers met the inclusion criteria and were synthesised. The emergent theory suggested transition to older age can challenge people’s sense of self and their role in life. Physical activity can help in regaining feelings of purpose, of being needed in collective group activity, and by creating habitual routine and structure to the day. In overcoming real and perceived barriers, and by taking up or sustaining physical activities, older adults can further build self-esteem all of which contributes to a fulfilling older age. Conclusion Current failures to increase population levels of physical activity in older adults may be explained by an approach overly focused on the health benefits of activity. Insights from this study suggest we need to reframe our approach to consider the wider set of goals and aspirations which are of greater personal importance to older adults, and future interventions should focus on how physical activity can contribute to life satisfaction, sense of purpose, and sense of role fulfilment in older age. Trial registration Registered prospectively on PROSPERO on 29th March 2013: CRD42013003796.

Abstract Background More people are living longer lives leading to a growth in the population of older adults, many of whom have comorbidities and low levels of physical function. Physical activity in later life can prevent or delay age-related disability. Identifying a cost-effective means of increasing physical activity in older adults therefore remains an important public health priority. Physical Activity Facilitation (PAF) is an intervention shown to increase physical activity in adults with depression. The PAF model was modified for a population of older adults at risk of disability. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of undertaking a definitive RCT of the PAF intervention in the target population. Methods A pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) was delivered through primary care. Patients at risk of disability and who were not meeting recommended levels of physical activity were recruited through postal invitation and direct approach in the practice waiting room. Those meeting eligibility criteria were enrolled and randomised at a 2:1 ratio to the PAF intervention and control. Behaviour change techniques were used by facilitators with participants over the telephone and face-to-face for 6 months. Outcome measures including physical function, physical activity, depression, social support, and quality of life were collected at baseline and at 6 months. Results A high proportion of patients responded to the initial invitation (68%), yet many were ineligible due to high levels of self-reported physical activity and baseline physical function. Fifty-one participants were recruited to the trial, with an average age of 74 years (range 65–89), and there were high rates of adherence and retention to the study (94% follow-up at 6 months). The majority of outcome data collected from participants was complete; however, the validated scale used to measure self-reported physical activity was associated with high levels of missing data. Conclusions The findings of this pilot RCT suggest that it is feasible to deliver a definitive RCT of the PAF intervention in this population. Further work is required to improve the efficiency of recruitment and to minimise missing data from self-reported physical activity measures. Trial registration Current controlled trials ISRCTN80470273. Registered 25 October 2013.

Abstract Background Dating and relationship violence (DRV)—intimate partner violence during adolescence—encompasses physical, sexual and emotional abuse. DRV is associated with a range of adverse health outcomes including injuries, sexually transmitted infections, adolescent pregnancy and mental health issues. Experiencing DRV also predicts both victimisation and perpetration of partner violence in adulthood. Prevention targeting early adolescence is important because this is when dating behaviours begin, behavioural norms become established and DRV starts to manifest. Despite high rates of DRV victimisation in England, from 22 to 48% among girls and 12 to 27% among boys ages 14–17 who report intimate relationships, no RCTs of DRV prevention programmes have taken place in the UK. Informed by two school-based interventions that have shown promising results in RCTs in the USA—Safe Dates and Shifting Boundaries—Project Respect aims to optimise and pilot a DRV prevention programme for secondary schools in England. Methods Design: optimisation and pilot cluster RCT. Trial will include a process evaluation and assess the feasibility of conducting a phase III RCT with embedded economic evaluation. Cognitive interviewing will inform survey development. Participants: optimisation involves four schools and pilot RCT involves six (four intervention, two control). All are secondary schools in England. Baseline surveys conducted with students in years 8 and 9 (ages 12–14). Follow-up surveys conducted with the same cohort, 16 months post-baseline. Optimisation sessions to inform intervention and research methods will involve consultations with stakeholders, including young people. Intervention: school staff training, including guidance on reviewing school policies and addressing ‘hotspots’ for DRV and gender-based harassment; information for parents; informing students of a help-seeking app; and a classroom curriculum for students in years 9 and 10, including a student-led campaign. Primary outcome: the primary outcome of the pilot RCT will be whether progression to a phase III RCT is justified. Testing within the pilot will also determine which of two existing scales is optimal for assessing DRV victimisation and perpetration in a phase III RCT. Discussion This will be the first RCT of an intervention to prevent DRV in the UK. If findings indicate feasibility and acceptability, we will undertake planning for a phase III RCT of effectiveness. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN 65324176. Registered 8 June 2017.

Background: ‘Dating and relationship violence’ is intimate partner violence during adolescence. Among dating adolescents in England, 66–75% of girls and 32–50% of boys report victimisation. Multicomponent school-based interventions might reduce dating and relationship violence. We optimised and piloted Project Respect, a new intervention in secondary schools in England, and study methods, to assess the value of a Phase III randomised controlled trial. Objectives: To optimise Project Respect and to then conduct a pilot randomised controlled trial in southern England, addressing whether or not progression to a Phase III trial is justified in terms of prespecified criteria. To assess which of two dating and relationship violence scales is optimal, to assess response rates and to consider any necessary refinements. Design: Optimisation activities aimed at intervention development and a pilot randomised controlled trial. Setting: Optimisation in four secondary schools across southern England, varying by region and local deprivation. A pilot cluster randomised controlled trial in six other such schools (four intervention schools and two control schools), varying by region, attainment and local deprivation. Participants: School students in years 8–10 at baseline and staff. Interventions: Schools were randomised to the intervention or control arm in a 2 : 1 ratio; intervention comprised staff training, mapping ‘hotspots’ in school for dating and relationship violence, modifying staff patrols, school policy review, informing parents and carers, an application supporting student help-seeking, and a classroom curriculum for students in years 9 and 10 (including student-led campaigns). Main outcome measures: Prespecified criteria for progression to Phase III of the trial, concerning acceptability, feasibility, fidelity and response rates. Primary health outcomes were assessed using the Safe Dates and short Conflicts in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory measures collected and analysed by individuals who were masked to allocation. Feasibility of economic analysis was assessed. Data sources: Baseline and follow-up student and staff surveys, interviews, observations and logbooks. Results: The intervention was optimised and approved by the Study Steering Committee. The student response rates in intervention and control groups were 1057 (84.8%) and 369 (76.6%) at baseline, and 1177 (76.8%) and 352 (83.4%) at follow-up, respectively. Safe Dates and the short Conflicts in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory had high levels of completion and reliability. At follow-up, prevalence of past-year dating and relationship violence victimisation was around 35% (Safe Dates scale and short Conflicts in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory). Staff response rates were very low. Training occurred in all four schools, with suboptimal fidelity. The curriculum was delivered with optimal fidelity in three schools. Other components were delivered inconsistently. Dating and relationship violence was addressed in control schools via violence prevention and responses, but not systematically. Intervention acceptability among students and staff was mixed. An economic evaluation would be feasible. Limitations: One school did not undertake baseline surveys. Staff survey response rates were low and completion of the logbook was patchy. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that progression to a Phase III trial of this intervention is not indicated because of limited fidelity and acceptability. Future work: High prevalence of dating and relationship violence highlights the ongoing need for effective intervention. Potential intervention refinements would include more external support for schools and enhanced curriculum materials. Any future randomised controlled trials could consider having a longer lead-in from randomisation to intervention commencement, using the short Conflicts in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory as the primary outcome and not relying on staff surveys. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN65324176. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 8, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.