Skip to main content

Unit information: Physical Activity and Nutrition Interventions: Conceptualisation and Design in 2014/15

Please note: you are viewing unit and programme information for a past academic year. Please see the current academic year for up to date information.

Unit name Physical Activity and Nutrition Interventions: Conceptualisation and Design
Unit code PHEDM4015
Credit points 20
Level of study M/7
Teaching block(s) Teaching Block 2 (weeks 13 - 24)
Unit director Professor. Russ Jago
Open unit status Not open
Pre-requisites

None

Co-requisites

None

School/department School for Policy Studies
Faculty Faculty of Social Sciences and Law

Description including Unit Aims

This unit will focus specifically on the issues associated with designing diet and physical activity interventions for different target groups. The course will demonstrate how the MRC guidelines for complex behavioural interventions can be used to design and evaluate diet and physical activity interventions for children, adults, and seniors. The module will include discussion and analysis of formative research, process evaluations, media campaigns, environmental interventions, randomised controlled interventions and will address issues related to cost-effectiveness of interventions. Case studies of key interventions related to specific lifestyle conditions as well as their successes and failures will be presented and used to facilitate the students development of their own interventions.

Aims:

  1. To evaluate the key issues associated with designing effective diet and physical activity interventions.
  2. To assess the strengths and weakness of different intervention approaches for key participant groups (i.e. children, adults seniors etc).
  3. To develop the necessary skills to design and/or evaluate a new diet and physical activity intervention

Intended Learning Outcomes

  1. To obtain an understanding of intervention design, including the concepts of mediation and moderation.
  2. To develop the skills necessary to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of different intervention designs.
  3. To develop the skills necessary to design and evaluate an effective diet or physical activity intervention for different target groups or disease.

Teaching Information

Teaching will be via face to face lectures and small group work in which students will work together to design and evaluate interventions using published studies and their resources (training manuals etc) as learning aids.

Assessment Information

Assessment will be in two parts. Part 1: Peer assessment of group designed diet or physical activity intervention (25%)

Part 2: Provide a report in which a new diet or physical activity intervention (for different group to part 1) is designed. Report will include an overview of the theory used to design the interventions, rationale for the target group, selection of the study design, hypothesised mediators and moderators of the intervention, description of the intervention and evaluation (including resource implications, process evaluation and cost-effectiveness) and dissemination plan. (3000 words – 75%.)

Reading and References

  1. Baranowski, T. and R. Jago. Understanding mechanisms of change in children's physical activity programs. Exercise and Sport Science Reviews. 33:163-168, 2005.
  2. Bowling, A. Research Methods in Health. 2nd Edition. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Cambridge U.P. (2002)
  3. Jago, R. and T. Baranowski. Non-curricular approaches for increasing physical activity in youth: a review. Prev Med. 39:157-163, 2004.
  4. Kendall, J. M. Designing a research project: randomised controlled trials and their principles. Emerg Med J. 20:164-168, 2003.
  5. Medical Research Council. A Framework for the Development and Evaluation of RCT's for Complex Interventions to Improve Health. London: MRC, 2000.
  6. Willging, C. E., D. Helitzer, and J. Thompson. "Sharing wisdom": Lessons learned during the development of a diabetes prevention intervention for Urban American Indian Women. Evaluation and Program Planning. 29:130-140, 2006.

Feedback