Estigate the impact in the intervention on children's attitudes towards

Schools had been clustered into two groups: 1. Intervention group (Liverpool): Schools received their usual smoking-related education plus SFS 2. Comparison group (Knowsley): Schools received their usual smoking education only A schematic SB 202190 web overview of your intervention and evaluation elements is shown in Fig. 1. Information collection occurred more than 20 months with measurements at baseline (T0, September and October 2012) and post-intervention (T1, June 2013) while young children were in Year five of main school, and at 1 year right after the intervention had completed (T2, June 2014; Year six of main school). Ethical approval for the study was granted by Liverpool John Moores University Study Ethics Committee (12/SPS/038).Participants and recruitmentIn September 2012, all eligible principal schools (mainstream state schools; n = 154), from Liverpool (n = 104)TimelineBaseline [T0]Sept-OctIntervention schoolsComparison schoolsLegendABABA B CChild smoking questionnaire Kid carbon monoxide breath reading Teacher/coach self-efficacy questionnaire Training workshop for teachers/coaches Multi-skill activity session Direct observation of coaching sessions Interviews with teachers Dance session Football session x 2 College assembly with sports star Focus groups with youngsters Teacher evaluation forms Interviews with coachesCDC0-2 MonthsNov-Dec 2012 EF D E F F G3-4 MonthsJan-FebGHI5-7 MonthsMar-May-2013 H IFHJ IPost-intervention [T1]JunABKABJ K LCGLMOne year follow-up [T2]JunABAB MFig. 1 Schematic overview of SmokeFree Sports intervention and evaluation componentsMcGee et al. BMC Public Health (2016) 16:Web page four ofand Knowsley (n = 50), were invited to take part in the study via e mail, post and phone. After schools had offered written informed consent to take part in the study, all Year five young children (aged 9?0 years; n = 1393) have been invited to take part. Parents/guardians received a letter contai.Estigate the effect on the intervention on children's attitudes towards smoking and cigarette refusal self-efficacy, termed smoking-related cognitions hereafter. The study also investigated whether or not sex moderated the intervention effects as differences in cognitive vulnerability towards smoking have already been found in between preadolescent boys and girls [14]. Furthermore, focus groups with young children were conducted to produce more full expertise to inform interpretations of intervention effectiveness. Considering the fact that sport-for-health interventions are an emergent region of wellness promotion analysis exactly where evaluations are sparse and/or have lacked methodological rigour [26, 43], it is recognised that rigorous evaluations of interventions are needed to inform future practice and procedures [25].MethodsStudy designA school-based non-randomised controlled trial was carried out to evaluate the effect of a sport-for-health smoking prevention intervention, SmokeFree Sports on children's intentions (not) to smoke and smoking-related cognitions. Due title= journal.pcbi.1005422 to funding needs, SFS was supplied to all main schools inside the Liverpool City Council administrative boundaries and hence an a priori sample size calculation was not undertaken. Schools within Knowsley, a further metropolitan borough in Merseyside with similar characteristics to Liverpool in terms of adult smoking prices (Liverpool: 24.2  ; Knowsley: 27.six ) [44], deprivation levels [45] and ethnic composition [46], had been recruited as comparison schools. For logistical reasons, it was title= fpsyg.2015.01865 not feasible to blind the analysis team towards the groupallocation. Schools were clustered into two groups: 1.