Author, year | Province | Evaluation type | Methods | Data source(s) | Study participants (n = sample size) | Evaluation indicators/questions | Main findings related to DPA |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Patton, 2012 | ON | Implement | QUANT | Survey | Teachers (n = 145) | % implementation, implementation approaches, teacher’s perspectives (supports and barriers, attitudes) | 45% often or always conduct DPA on days with no PE; 85% report sufficient resources and 89% report sufficient knowledge; 46% think DPA should be more structured; 65% reported lack of monitoring; 60% support DPA |
Patton et al. 2014 | ON | Implement | QUANT | Survey | Students (n = 146) | Implementation approaches, barriers, attitudes | 46% reported DPA every day there is not PE; barriers: student disruption, withholding DPA as punishment; majority of students agree that there is enough space/equipment/time to do DPA every fday and majority enjoy it |
AGO, 2013 | ON | Implement | MIXED | Survey, interviews, document review | School boards (teachers and principals) (n = unknown) | Procedures for implementing, monitoring and measurement and reporting of DPA in schools | Neither the Ministry or school boards are monitoring implementation; majority of principals reported students not getting DPA; barriers: lack of time and space, focus on literacy |
Strampel et al. 2014 | ON | Implement | MIXED | Survey (with open-ended questions) | Teachers (n = 137) | Barriers and possible solutions to DPA implementation | Barriers: lack of time, resources, space, and staff and student buy-in; possible solutions: new games with minimal equipment, more indoor DPA activities, better infrastructure, more resources, whole-school DPA approach, student leaders/DPA role models, school-community links for DPA |
Robertson-Wilson and Lévesque, 2009 | ON | Implement | QUAL | Archival documents | N/A | Framework used to examine implementation approaches and challenges | DPA policy accounts for several factors (allocation of resources, task specification) important for implementation but not all (sustainability of resources, policy value, evaluation plans) |
Brown and Elliott, 2015 | ON | Implement | QUAL | Semi-structured interviews | Teachers (n = 14) and principals (n = 5) | DPA implementation approaches, facilitators, barriers, perceived outcomes, and suggestions for change | Approaches: multiple breaks, student-led activities, integration into other subjects; facilitators: staff support, available resources, training sessions; barriers: lack of time, space, equipment, training, student motivation, and monitoring; outcomes: increased focus, enjoyment, classroom environment; suggestions: whole-community approach, more space, resources, and monitoring |
Rickwood, 2015 | ON | Implement | QUAL | Semi-structured interviews | Teachers (n = 5) and school administrators (n = 4) | Perceived barriers, association between beliefs about DPA policy and student PA levels | Barriers: diminishing priority of DPA, used as a behavior management strategy, lack of student motivation |
Allison et al. 2014 | ON | Implement | QUAL | Semi-structured group and individual interviews | Central players in development and implementation of DPA (n = 10) | Factors influencing development and implementation, roles of key players, barriers, and current status of DPA | Issues of flexibility and accountability; several relationships to assist with implementation; barriers of tight timeline, lack of support, insufficient training, lack of facilities, space and equipment, poor weather, increased teacher burden, lack of accountability; inconsistent implementation and lack of evaluation plan |
Gilmore and Donohoe, 2016 | ON | Implement | QUANT | Survey | Teachers (n = 136) | Implementation status; perceived competence, motivation and skills to deliver DPA | 46% of teachers reported that DPA is not being delivered; majority of teachers lack competence, motivation and skills to deliver DPA |
Stone et al. 2012 | ON | Combination | QUANT | Accelerometer and classroom schedules | Students (n = 856) | Total PA, frequency of DPA schedule, and quality, number and duration of sustained bouts of MVPA (≥5 min), BMI | Less than 50% get DPA every day, but for those that do they are more active, more likely to meet guidelines and less likely to be overweight; no child engaged in sustained MVPA for ≥20 min |
Hobin et al. 2010 | ON | Combination | QUANT | Survey | Students (n = 2379) and school administrators (n = 30) | Student-level (sex, grade, #PE classes/week, MVPA minutes) and school-level (intramurals and interschool programs, DPA implementation model) characteristics | 70% of schools offered DPA only on days without PE; student PA levels were associated with PE frequency but not DPA implementation model |
Kennedy et al. 2010 | AB | Implement | MIXED | Interview or survey | Principals/vice-principals (n = 55) and PE teachers (n = 7) | DPA knowledge, % implementation, approaches, barriers | 100% principals and teachers reported full implementation; 80% of schools provided daily PE |
Alberta Education, 2008 | AB | Implement | MIXED | Survey | Principals (n = 387) and teachers (n = 638) | Resources and supports for DPA, PE, DPA activities, attitudes, challenges, monitoring status | Positive perceptions of DPA, higher for principals; multiple approaches for implementation and challenges (scheduling, lack of facilities/space); 60% of principals monitor DPA |
Watts et al. 2014a | BC | Implement | QUANT | Survey | Principals (n = 351) | Environment changes; minutes of PE per week and delivery method of PE | ≥150 min PE/week increased from 34.1 to 48.1% before and after implementation |
Mâsse et al. 2013 | BC | Implement | QUAL | Semi-structured Interviews | Principals (n = 17) and teachers (n = 33) | Perceived implementation, styles/change, factors that impeded or facilitated implementation of DPA | Perceived implementation varies between principals and teachers; prescriptive vs. non-prescriptive approach; major themes: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, observability, facilitators (contextual factors) |