Search

Background: There is currently little evidence of planning for real-world implementation of physical activity interventions. We are undertaking the ComeBACK (Coaching and Exercise for Better Walking) study, a 3-arm hybrid Type 1 randomised controlled trial evaluating a health coaching intervention and a text messaging intervention. We used an implementation planning framework, the PRACTical planning for Implementation and Scale-up (PRACTIS), to guide the process evaluation for the trial. The aim of this paper is to describe the protocol for the process evaluation of the ComeBACK trial using the framework of the PRACTIS guide.Methods: A mixed methods process evaluation protocol was developed informed by the Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance on process evaluations for complex interventions and the PRACTIS guide. Quantitative data, including participant questionnaires, health coach and administrative logbooks, and website and text message usage data, is being collected over the trial period. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups with trial participants, health coaches and health service stakeholders will explore expectations, factors influencing the delivery of the ComeBACK interventions and potential scalability within existing health services. These data will be mapped against the steps of the PRACTIS guide, with reporting at the level of the individual, provider, organisational and community/systems. Quantitative and qualitative data will elicit potential contextual barriers and facilitators to implementation and scale-up. Quantitative data will be reported descriptively, and qualitative data analysed thematically.Discussion: This process evaluation integrates an evaluation of prospective implementation and scale-up. It is envisaged this will inform barriers and enablers to future delivery, implementation and scale-up of physical activity interventions. To our knowledge, this is the first paper to describe the application of PRACTIS to guide the process evaluation of physical activity interventions.Trial Registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ANZCTR ) Registration date: 10/12/2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary Low‐carbohydrate dietary patterns are re‐emerging as a popular method of weight reduction. However, their nutritional adequacy to meet the needs of growing adolescents should be considered. This study aimed to design theoretical low‐carbohydrate meal plans for clinical use in the management of adolescent obesity and assess nutritional adequacy. Meal plans were created for three levels of carbohydrate restriction (≤30, ≤50 and ≤120 g/day) without energy, protein or total fat restriction. Nutrient analysis was conducted using the FoodWorks Australia Ltd software (databases: AUSNUT 2013, AusBrands 2017, AusFoods 2017, NUTTAB 2010, New Zealand FOODfiles 2016), and compared with Australian Nutrient Reference Values for male and female adolescents aged 14 to 18 years. All low‐carbohydrate meal plans met the Recommended Dietary Intake, Adequate Intake or Estimated Average Requirements for most micronutrients at an energy intake of 6.3 to 7.2 MJ/day (1510‐1730 kcal/day). The proportion of energy from saturated fat exceeded recommendations across all models (11.3%‐17.1%). Dietary manipulation was required to minimize saturated fat and reach micronutrient adequacy, particularly for calcium in males and females, and iron for females. In practice, this may be challenging considering individual lifestyle and preferences. Therefore, the use of low‐carbohydrate diets with adolescents should be monitored by a trained professional to ensure nutritional adequacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]