SECTORIZACIÓN DE UNA ESTRUCTURA EN ALTURA

Research question one: How enjoyable is the WJS programme, and is it more enjoyable than C25K?

Participant numbers were small and so power to detect enjoyment differences between programmes was low (particularly in later weeks). Nevertheless, there is some evidence for WJS being more enjoyable than C25K, with mean and median PACES scores being higher for every scale item and for every week of the programme, with a medium effect size for the overall PACES comparison despite the lack of a significant result for this analysis. Week 5 did show that WJS was significantly more enjoyable than C25K with a large effect size, which was in the anticipated direction since it was thought that the steep increase in running interval length in this week would make the sessions less enjoyable. This is evidence for the approach of WJS using more gradual interval increases. Although it might be expected that week 1 would also show differences in enjoyment between programmes, this was not

statistically significant (though there was a medium effect size and enjoyment was higher for WJS). This might either be due to low power, or possibly to enjoyment being less important in the very early stages, where no habit of running has yet been established, and participants might not be very invested in the programme. Larger participant numbers are required for a fuller picture of whether enjoyment is higher for WJS versus C25K over the full nine weeks.

Research question two: What were people’s experiences of WJS and C25K programmes, and how could WJS be optimised?

Feedback on both programmes was quite positive, albeit from the viewpoint of participants who completed the programmes. The WJS programme was described as achievable, with the optional runs treated as optional. A possible amendment to the WJS podcast would be to suggest a graded approach to these optional jogs. WJS participants seemed to find pacing easier than C25K participants despite the occasional bad day. A useful addition to the podcast

could be focusing on recent successes when participants are struggling, as well as giving ‘permission’ to repeat weeks if needed. WJS participants generally seemed to find the structure clear and well signposted, in contrast to comments on some sessions by C25K participants.

Anticipation of the end was important for participants, both in terms of time and geography. C25K participants disliked either not being able to pace themselves towards the end of the session, or having to run up and down the same place near the end. Having a halfway notification for out and back routes was valued by WJS participants and requested by C25K participants so they could plan their route to finish at a suitable location. Participants liked the sprint finishes suggested in the WJS podcasts and implied by the music tempo in both podcasts. WJS participants also liked the countdowns. No particular improvements to the WJS programme are suggested in this area, though more research is needed on affective responses to sprint finishes and the endings of exercise sessions.

Encouragement was valued by WJS participants and C25K participants wanted more during some weeks. WJS participants talked of enjoying the podcast, the music and particular sessions, whereas C25K participants spoke less of enjoying these, though they did comment on other aspects they enjoyed. These results are in line with the quantitative results from the PACES scale, suggesting that WJS was more enjoyable than C25K, particularly in week 5. Participants in both programmes expressed a desire for more talking in later weeks as a form of distraction, and they also discussed ‘talking back’ to the podcast (usually in negative ways). More talking could be one simple way of improving the WJS podcast, to help distract participants from discomfort and improve affect. WJS participants said they found the

podcast humorous in places, in contrast with the more serious approach in the C25K podcast, where the only humour mentioned related to the social environment. The idea of a ‘running journey’ or ‘becoming a runner’ was a valued part of the C25K podcast and would be useful to include explicitly in the WJS podcast as a way of participants making sense of hard days, set-backs and interruptions being part of this journey

C25K participants seemed to like ‘running tips’ even if they didn’t use them, with the

exception of a tip to count breaths. WJS participants generally liked many of the running tips offered (e.g. countdowns, counting as a distraction, looking around at the environment, and smiling), however they were not explicitly framed as or understood by participants as ‘tips’. This is something which could be added to the WJS podcasts since C25K participants seemed

to value the feeling of expertise being transferred in easy-to-understand informational

chunks, particularly ‘mental tips’ about overcoming mental challenges during the programme. Participants sometimes found the warmup walk boring or a waste of time, whilst others found it insufficient to allow them to run easily at first. Sessions could be improved by making the warmup more enjoyable and by drawing attention to other aspects of the programme. By contrast, the cooldown seemed virtually invisible to participants, other than the music used. More research is needed on cooldowns.

The music used in the podcasts was generally popular despite a few participants disliking either all the music or a couple of specific tracks. The music used in some of the final running sections was popular and participants said it motivated them and helped them run faster at the end. Given it was only the WJS podcast which regularly recommended a sprint finish near the end of the session, the music might have also encouraged C25K participants to attempt a sprint finish. Although a couple of tracks could be changed for more popular ones, there seems little need for changing the music, since it was relatively well received.

Research question three: Is the study design feasible for scaling up to a larger trial? A final study aim was to test procedures for recruitment, eligibility screening, randomisation, participant access to materials, data collection via Strava and study completion rates to assess feasibility for a future potential large scale randomized trial comparing WJS and C25K programmes. Eligibility screening was successful, as was randomisation via QualtricsTM_.

Participants reported few problems in downloading Strava and the podcasts, and data

collection via Strava and QualtricsTM _{was fairly trouble-free. These aspects are suitable for a}

future larger randomised trial, and have an advantage in using a free, widely-available and easy-to-use app as part of data collection, reducing study costs considerably.

Recruitment was more problematic. Participants were almost exclusively female and well educated, though the age range was fairly broad and included two women in their fifties. Drop-out was high, though the participant numbers are too small for any meaningful comparison between programmes. 27 people were screened as eligible and 18 participants logged at least one run on Strava, though only 8 people finished the programmes. Analysis of completers versus non-completers showed no significant differences in PACES results, suggesting that factors other than enjoyment might have played a role in drop-out. The low completion rate, together with multiple attempts at some weeks by some participants, and

reports of previous failure to complete other run-walking programmes, all suggest that completing a 9-week programme within this timeframe and without repetition or setbacks such as weather conditions or injury is difficult. It also suggests that in order to have sufficient participant numbers to compare programmes on enjoyment and future PA

behaviour, large numbers will need to be recruited, particularly if there is also a control such as a wait-list condition.