Table 2.
The Stand Out in Class pilot RCT process evaluation plan
| Areas to measure | General process questions | Data source and data collection method | Total numbers and sampling strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acceptability of randomisation and measurement tools (objectives 5 and 6) | How did schools feel about being randomised to intervention/control arms? How did schools/children/parents experience recruitment and outcome assessments? Did schools/children/parents find outcome assessments acceptable? What were the reasons for not participating in the trial and/or not complying to the outcome measures? |
Interviews with teachers In-class focus groups with children Focus groups with parents Recruitment data (numbers consenting), and missing data from outcome assessments One-to-one interviews with parents and children not participating and/or not complying |
Eight teachers from participating schools (end of summer term) Eight focus groups with children (one per school) after baseline assessments. Eight focus groups with parents (one per school) after baseline assessments. Data collected at baseline and follow-up Interviews conducted after baseline assessments |
| Intervention acceptability and fidelity (objectives 7 and 9) | Was the intervention implemented as planned? | Interviews with intervention teachers Observations of lessons |
Four intervention teachers Time-points (T): T1: After desk installation T2: End of year 5 Four intervention schools observed once per term |
| Intervention acceptability and fidelity (objectives 7 and 9) | What proportion of the target group participated in the intervention? | Teachers logs and telephone interviews with intervention teachers | Four intervention teachers recording use of desks in log book and brief telephone contact every 2 weeks |
| Intervention acceptability and fidelity—potential moderating factors (objectives 7 and 9) | How were children engaged with sit-stand desks? How satisfied were schools/children/parents with sit-stand desks? How did schools/children/parents perceive the outcomes and usefulness of sit-stand desks |
Focus groups with children (in class) Interviews with teachers Focus groups with parents |
Four in class focus groups with children from intervention schools: Time points: T1: After desk installation T2: End of year 5 Four intervention teachers T1: After desk installation T2: End of year 5 Four parent focus groups from intervention schools (after desk installation) |
| Intervention acceptability and fidelity—strategies to facilitate implementation (objective 7 and 9) | What strategies were used to support introduction of standing desks? How were these strategies perceived by staff involved within project? |
Interviews with teachers | Four intervention teachers Time-points: T1: After desk installation T2: End of year 5 |
| Intervention acceptability and fidelity—quality of delivery (objectives 7 and 9) | How well were sit-stand desks introduced? What is the quality of the sit-stand desks and professional manual? |
Interviews with teachers Focus groups with children (in class) |
Four intervention teachers Time-points: T1: After desk installation T2: End of year 5 4 in class focus groups with children from intervention schools: T1: After desk installation T2: End of year 5 |
| Intervention fidelity—context (objective 9) | What factors at political, economical, organisational and work group levels affected the implementation? | Interviews with teachers and head teachers | Four intervention teachers (end of year 5) Four interviews with head teachers from intervention schools (end of year 5) |