
==== Front
Contemp Clin Trials Commun
Contemp Clin Trials Commun
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
2451-8654
Elsevier

S2451-8654(24)00105-4
10.1016/j.conctc.2024.101358
101358
Article
Increasing participation in resistance training using outdoor gyms: A study protocol for the ecofit type III hybrid effectiveness implementation trial
Jansson Anna K. ab
Lubans David R. abc
Duncan Mitch J. abd
Smith Jordan J. ab
Bauman Adrian e
Attia John d
Robards Sara L. a
Cox Emily R. abf
Beacroft Sam a
Plotnikoff Ronald C. ron.plotnikoff@newcastle.edu.au
ab⁎
a Centre for Active Living and Learning, School of Education, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
b Active Living and Learning Research Program, Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia
c Faculty of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland
d School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia
e School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia
f School of Biomedical Sciences and Pharmacy, University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia
⁎ Corresponding author. Centre for Active Living and Learning, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia. ron.plotnikoff@newcastle.edu.au
24 8 2024
10 2024
24 8 2024
41 10135824 6 2024
7 8 2024
22 8 2024
© 2024 The Authors
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Background

In this paper we outline the protocol for an implementation-effectiveness trial of ecofit, a multi-component mHealth intervention aimed at increasing participation in resistance and aerobic physical activity using the outdoor built environment (i.e., outdoor gyms) and social support. We have previously demonstrated the efficacy and effectiveness of the ecofit program in insufficiently active people with (or at risk of) type 2 diabetes and community-dwelling adults, respectively. The objective of this trial is to compare the effects of two implementation support models (i.e., ‘Low’ versus ‘Moderate’) on the reach (primary outcome), uptake, dose received, impact and fidelity of the ecofit program.

Research design and methods

This hybrid type III implementation-effectiveness study will be evaluated using a two-arm randomized controlled trial, including 16 outdoor gym locations in two large regional municipalities in New South Wales, Australia. Outdoor gym locations will be pair-matched, based on an established socio-economic status consensus-based index (high versus low), and randomized to the ‘Low’ (i.e., ecofit app only) or ‘Moderate’ (i.e., ecofit app, face-to-face workout sessions and QR codes) implementation support group. The primary outcome of ‘reach’ will be measured using a modified version of the ‘System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities’, capturing outdoor gym use amongst community members.

Conclusion

This implementation-effectiveness trial will evaluate the effects of different levels of implementation support on participation in resistance-focused physical activity using mHealth and outdoor gyms across the broader community. This may guide widespread dissemination for councils (municipalities) nation-wide wanting to promote outdoor gym usage.

Trial registry

This trial was preregistered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12624000261516).

Keywords

Resistance training
Physical activity
mhealth
Outdoor gym
==== Body
pmc1 Introduction

Physical inactivity accounts for 9 % of premature mortality (5.3 million deaths) worldwide and is one of the leading risk factors for non-communicable diseases [1]. In Australia, physical inactivity accounts for 10–20 % of the national disease burden for several major non-communicable diseases (e.g., diabetes, different cancers, dementia, coronary heart disease and stroke) and is responsible for 3 % of the total burden of disease [2]. Insufficient activity results in annual healthcare expenditures of approximately AUS$850 million, and AUS$15.6 billion in productivity loss [3]. National and international guidelines [4] recommend adults engage in 150–300 min of moderate-intensity (or 75–150 min of vigorous-intensity) aerobic physical activity weekly, and resistance training (RT) on at least two days/week. The prevalence of meeting both aerobic and resistance activity guidelines globally and in Australia is 17 % and 15 % for adults, respectively [5], with fewer Australian adults achieving RT (19–40 %) [[6], [7], [8], [9]] than the aerobic physical activity guidelines (45 %) [8]. Despite the consequences of inactivity and the many health-related benefits [[10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]] of meeting both physical activity guidelines [4], few at-scale physical activity interventions have been conducted to improve participation rates [17]. To enhance population physical activity behaviours and health-related outcomes, effective interventions that are ‘scalable’ are needed [18].

Within public health, ‘scale-up’ refers to the “… deliberate efforts to increase the impact of successfully tested health interventions so as to benefit more people and to foster policy and program development on a lasting basis” [19]. Some aerobic-based physical activity interventions targeting adults have been scaled-up from efficacy to effectiveness to dissemination, becoming embedded in systems outside of the research setting (e.g., the 10,000 Steps program [[20], [21], [22]]). By comparison, few RT interventions targeting adults have progressed from efficacy to effectiveness [23,24], and to our knowledge, no interventions have been disseminated and implemented on a larger scale. While examples of scaled-up RT interventions exist in school settings (e.g., ‘Resistance Training for Teens’ [25]), the lack of scale-up trials targeting adults is concerning, given the higher proportion of not meeting the RT guidelines [[6], [7], [8]]. It may be that interventions promoting aerobic exercise are easier and cheaper to scale-up compared with those involving RT, as most RT interventions are supervised, include specialised equipment (e.g., weight machines, free weights, elastic resistance bands), are delivered within exercise facilities, and require a different sets of skills (e.g., correct lifting techniques versus going for a walk) [26,27]. Knowledge of the independent health benefits of RT is also more recent than for aerobic activities, providing another potential explanation for this research/practice gap. Regardless, the presence of explicit recommendations to participate in RT warrants a focus on this important, yet often overlooked health behaviour [28].

ecofit is a community-based, multi-component intervention that promotes resistance and aerobic physical activity using smartphone technology, the outdoor built environment and social support. The ecofit intervention has been evaluated in an efficacy trial targeting adults at risk of/diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, and in an effectiveness trial targeting community-dwelling adults failing to satisfy physical activity recommendations. The efficacy trial showed significant improvements in both primary outcomes (i.e., aerobic fitness and lower body muscular fitness) at the primary time-point, while the effectiveness trial showed significant improvements in upper and lower body muscular fitness at follow-up only [29,30]. For a more detailed account of the efficacy and effectiveness trials, see the published protocols [31,32]. This research protocol will outline the steps guiding the translation pathway of ecofit to larger scale implementation [33,34]. Fig. 1 provides a summary of the translation pathway for the ecofit intervention. This will be done by testing a ‘Low’ versus a ‘Moderate’ implementation support model on the ecofit intervention in two large regional municipalities in New South Wales, Australia, on the reach (primary outcome), uptake, dose received, impact and fidelity. The planning and design have been guided by the Medical Research Council recommendations for developing and evaluating complex interventions [35] and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) [36].Fig. 1 Research translational continuum of the ecofit intervention.

Fig. 1

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Experimental design

We will evaluate the implementation of ecofit using a hybrid type III implementation-effectiveness trial [37] involving 16 outdoor gym locations randomized to either the (i) ‘Low’ or (ii) ‘Moderate’ implementation support model. Assessments will be conducted at baseline, 3-months (primary and secondary outcomes) and 6-months (secondary outcomes only) and will commence in mid-2024. This implementation-effectiveness trial will be conducted across all outdoor gym locations (N = 16) in the Newcastle City (population n = 173,251) and Lake Macquarie (population n = 202,680) local government municipalities, New South Wales (NSW), Australia. The Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies (StaRI) initiative will be used in the reporting of this study [38]. Our study has received ethical approval from the University of Newcastle Ethics committee (H-2018-0060). The trial has been registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ANZCTR) (ACTRN12624000261516).

2.2 Recruitment, randomization and blinding

We have developed a promotional campaign to promote outdoor gym use across both local government municipalities; this will serve as the primary recruitment strategy for the study. The campaign will employ strategies, used in the ecofit effectiveness trial [31] and other, similar studies [39], including print and broadcast media, letter drops to all households within the same or adjacent suburbs of each outdoor gym, school/work newsletters, and social media, to promote the ecofit app and outdoor gym use. The promotional information will also emphasise the benefits of RT.

Randomization of the park location has already been conducted. Each outdoor gym was pair-matched based on the socioeconomic status of the area surrounding the facilities (high versus low). This classification was estimated using an established socioeconomic status consensus-based index (i.e., the SEIFA index of relative socio-economic advantage and disadvantage) [40]. Parks within each pair were randomized to one of the two conditions (i.e., ‘Low’ or ‘Moderate’ implementation support). The randomization procedure was conducted by a researcher not part of the core research team. The randomization outcome for each location can be found in supplementary material 1. Data collection will be blinded to group allocation.

2.3 Outdoor gym quality audit tool

As part of this study, an audit was conducted to determine the ‘quality’ of the outdoor gym facilities by a single researcher. Our audit tool was developed for this study, as there were no existing validated instruments for assessing the quality of outdoor gyms. Items include: (i) general cleanliness of equipment (ii) presence of substantial rust on gym equipment, (iii) broken/damaged equipment (percentage of available equipment), (iv) safety issues surrounding equipment, (v) instructional signage or pre-existing QR codes to online instructions (i.e., not QR codes created for this program), (vi) accessibility (i.e., parking within 100 m of facilities), (vii) accessibility (i.e., quality walking paths leading to equipment, (vii) presence of security cameras, and (ix) lighting around the outdoor gym. The items are assessed via ‘yes’ (definitely present), ‘somewhat’ (partly present) and ‘no/none’ (not present). The majority of outdoor gyms were judged as clean with good access and did not have substantial rust or safety hazards related to the outdoor gym area (e.g., broken equipment, sharp edges, fallen branches). Most had existing support on how to use the equipment, lighting was poor in most locations and there were no security cameras present. The audit instrument and results are included in supplementary material 2.

2.4 Intervention components, delivery, and implementation strategies

This study will assess the implementation-effectiveness of two different implementation support models promoting the ecofit intervention, which are outlined in Fig. 2 (i) Low support (i.e., ecofit app): versus (ii) Moderate support (i.e., ecofit app, face-to-face workout sessions and QR codes). These implementation support strategies were guided by the findings from our previous studies [30,31,41,42]. See Table 1 for an overview of the two main previous studies.Fig. 2 Outline of the Low and Moderate implementation support models promoting the ecofit intervention.

Fig. 2

Table 1 Overview of the efficacy and effectiveness trials and key changes.

Table 1Efficacy trial design (N = 84) [30,32]	Key changes made for the effectiveness trial	Effectiveness trial design (N = 245) [29,31]	Key changes made for the implementation-effectiveness trial	
Target population: Adults at risk of, or diagnosed with, type 2 diabetes.
Design: Two-arm RCT evaluating a 20-week community-based physical activity intervention integrating outdoor built environment (e.g., some outdoor gym equipment, park benches, trees, railings), smartphone technology (i.e., app), and social support (i.e., face-to-face workout and cognitive mentoring sessions).
Intervention: The intervention group was provided a smartphone application (app), which included workouts and cognitive challenges. In the first 10-weeks of the intervention, participants also received five face-to-face workout/skill-building and psycho-educational sessions.
Primary outcomes: Aerobic fitness and lower body muscular fitness.
Results: Significant improvements in aerobic and lower body muscular fitness at the primary time-point (10-wk) and follow-up (20-wk).	• Partnership with Newcastle and Lake Macquarie City Councils.

• More inclusive eligibility criteria

• Larger sample size.

• Removed face-to-face workout and cognitive mentoring sessions.

• Developed a more comprehensive smartphone application to substitute the face-to-face component.

• Only provided participants with one introductory session and an app manual.

• Workouts had more focus on using the outdoor gym equipment to perform exercises.

• Primary outcomes targeting muscular fitness only.

	Target population: Adults not meeting the aerobic and/or the resistance training guidelines.
Design: Two-arm cluster RCT evaluating a 9-month community-based mHealth physical activity intervention (strong focus on RT), which prescribed workouts using locally available outdoor gym facilities through a smartphone application. To promote social support, participants were able to enrol as groups (of up to 4) and join the ecofit Facebook group.
Intervention: The intervention group was provided with access to a smartphone app, which included standardised workouts tailored to each workout location. In addition, participants had to attend a 90-min introduction session prior to receiving access to the app.
Primary outcomes: Upper and lower body muscular fitness.
Results: Significant improvements in upper and lower body muscular fitness at follow-up (9-months), but not at the primary time-point (3-months).	• Shifting focus from individual health-related outcomes to reach and uptake.

• Inclusion of more outdoor gym locations (due to recent installations).

• Reintroducing face-to-face sessions at the intervention parks. Although, these will not include the psychology-based component.

• Intervention parks will also include QR codes to download the app.

• Adding a website with introductory videos to the app and a downloadable app manual.

• Removing the happiness-item and the 12-min walk/run test from the self-assessment.

	

2.5 Intervention components

2.5.1 ecofit app

The ecofit application has been updated based on feedback from the smartphone app used in the effectiveness trial [29,31] and the need to increase the scalability of its functions from a design perspective. The new ecofit platform can be accessed both via a smartphone app downloadable for apple and android devices, as well as via website browsers. The functionality has been improved and expanded upon compared with the previous app [31], and now includes a more scalable approach to tailoring workouts.

The new platform includes (i) videos with real people demonstrating the exercises in an outdoor gym or home-based setting, (ii) written instructions of each exercise alongside the videos, (iii) four different difficulty levels (i.e., level 1 to 4), (iv) ability to choose predetermined or ‘create your own’ workouts, (v) self-monitoring functions (i.e., goal setting and self-assessment tool), (vi) an exercise library, and (vii) resources based on behaviour change techniques [43]. Instead of a face-to-face introductory session, as was used in the effectiveness trial [31], the new ecofit platform includes a built-in function that guides users through the app upon registration. Alongside this, users will also have access to an introductory video explaining the purpose of ecofit and an onboarding video, which provides an overview of how to use the ecofit app. The app will be available to download free of charge, with no exclusion criteria. Informed consent will be collected via the app upon registration. See Fig. 3 for a screenshot of the ecofit app homepage and ‘progress’ section.Fig. 3 Screenshots of the home page and progress page from the ecofit app.

Fig. 3

2.5.2 ecofit workouts

The workouts on the ecofit platform have been expanded upon to suit a broader range of fitness levels. Adaptations include adding more exercises to the overall library, as well as creating another (lower) level of difficulty which targets individuals with low fitness and/or who may have compromised mobility. The difficulty levels for all exercises range from ‘1’ (easiest) to ‘4’ (most difficult) and were determined by an Accredited Exercise Physiologist. The number of sets for each exercise within the workouts range from 1 to 2 (level 1) to 2–3 (levels 2–4) and the number of recommended repetitions is 10 for each set. Upon program commencement, participants will be instructed to initially complete one set of each exercise. When they are able to complete the full set comfortably, they will be encouraged to complete an additional set. When participants can comfortably complete the maximum recommended number of sets per level, they will be instructed to move to the next level.

To support scalability, the new ecofit platform uses a multi-component approach to creating workouts. These improvements were based on the results from the process evaluation of the effectiveness trial [44], and meetings between researchers and the app design team. App users can choose a ‘generic workout’ (i.e., includes exercises with minimal equipment that can be performed in a home or park-based setting). For park-based settings, the generic workout assumes that there is a wall, bench and railing available, whereas for the home-based setting, it assumes that there is a bench/chair, wall, and light weights (e.g., food cans, water bottles) available. App users can also choose a workout based on specific locations created by the research team (i.e., the research team has mapped out a workout based on the availability of equipment/facilities available at each outdoor gym included in the study) and/or create their own workout by entering the type of equipment available (i.e., the app will generate a workout based on availability of equipment). App users will have the option to choose a workout that targets a specific area of the body (e.g., full body, upper body with/without core, lower body with/without core or core only). See Fig. 4 for a screenshot on an example ecofit workout and instructions to perform a specific exercise.Fig. 4 Screenshot of an ecofit workout and instructions of how to perform a specific exercise.

Fig. 4

2.5.3 Outdoor gyms

All outdoor gym locations (regardless of randomization outcome) will be included on the ecofit platform. The characteristics (i.e., type, pieces of equipment, socio-economic status of surrounding suburb) of the outdoor gyms are described in Supplementary material 1. The number of pieces of equipment range from three to 19, and the outdoor gym locations are classified as either ‘trail’, ‘pod’ or ‘trail/pod’, as per an earlier published definition [41]. ‘Trail-based’ outdoor gyms consist of ≥2 exercise stations placed sequentially along an existing walking path, where each station includes ≤3 unique pieces of exercise equipment, or equipment intended for performing ≤3 distinct exercises. ‘Pod-based’ outdoor gyms comprise of one station with ≥4 unique pieces of exercise equipment, or equipment intended for performing ≥4 distinct exercises, clustered to one location. ‘Trail/pod-based’ outdoor gyms utilise a combination of trail- and pod-based (at least one pod), which enable users to engage with the exercise equipment either as part of their transit along the trail or solely within the pod station.

2.6 Implementation strategies

2.6.1 Face-to-face training sessions

Three, 1-h face-to-face, on-site, group-based exercise sessions, led by a trained fitness professional, will be implemented as part of the Moderate implementation support model. The sessions will be conducted within the first month of the intervention, on set times and days (i.e., weekdays and weekends), and individuals can register to attend the sessions free of charge. Each session will encompass a complete standardised resistance and aerobic-based workout, which has been tailored to the outdoor gym location (i.e., workouts will vary pending availability of equipment). Workouts will follow the same structure as in the ecofit app (i.e., 3 x upper body, 3 x lower body and 2 x core exercises, and each exercise will be completed as 2 sets of 10 repetitions) [45]. The aerobic component will vary depending on outdoor gym type (i.e., trail, pod, or trail/pod). For outdoor gym pods, the aerobic activity may include short bursts of aerobic activities between each resistance activity (e.g., star jumps, 100-m walk/run out of/back to the pod, marching/running on the spot) or a longer walk/run after completing the resistance-based exercises. The trail locations will provide the opportunity for aerobic activity when moving between equipment. In addition to the workout, the group-based sessions provide an opportunity to ask questions about the ecofit app and receive feedback on their exercise technique. To advertise the face-to-face training sessions, posters will be placed on or near the outdoor gym equipment where the workout sessions will be held, along with schools, shopping centres and community notice boards in suburbs surrounding the outdoor gym locations. Exercise sessions will also be advertised via email to those app users who indicate living within the same postcode of the outdoor gyms allocated to Moderate implementation support model, during the app registration.

2.6.2 Quick-response (QR) codes

QR codes will be placed next to or near the outdoor gyms included in the locations receiving Moderate implementation support. Scanning the QR code will automatically redirect park visitors to the ecofit website and provide information about how to download the app. In recent years, QR codes are becoming increasingly popular to use in various research fields and non-research settings [46]. Websites that include program information and resources have been used in other larger scale physical activity interventions [22].

2.7 Outcomes/measures and data collection

Based on an evaluation roadmap for scaling-up physical activity and behavioural nutrition interventions [47], a primary outcome (i.e., reach), and several secondary implementation outcomes (i.e., uptake, dose received, impact, fidelity), secondary intervention outcomes (i.e., app usage, acceptability, feasibility and dose satisfaction) and implementation determinants (acceptability, feasibility and satisfaction of face to face sessions and overall cost effectiveness) will be assessed. The primary implementation outcome of ‘reach’ will be measured at baseline and 3-months (primary timepoint). The secondary implementation and intervention outcomes will be measured at baseline, 3-months (primary timepoint) and 6-months (follow-up). Secondary implementation determinants will be assessed following the face-to-face sessions (acceptability, feasibility and satisfaction of face-to-face sessions) and at the conclusion (overall cost-effectiveness) of the study.

2.7.1 Primary implementation outcome/measures

2.7.1.1 Reach

The primary outcome ‘reach’ is defined as the difference in the absolute number (3-month minus baseline assessments) of outdoor gym users (i.e., people using the outdoor gyms for RT activities) between the two implementation models. This will be measured using a ‘modified version’ of the System for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities (SOPARC Resistance Training (hereafter referred to as SOPARC-RT)) [41].

SOPARC-RT has been specifically adapted to capture additional data (not included in the original SOPARC protocol [48]) by coding the interaction with the outdoor gym equipment (i.e., ‘using equipment for RT,’ ‘completing RT without equipment,’ ‘stretching using equipment’ and ‘using equipment for aerobic exercise’) [41]. Each park will have one predetermined target area (i.e., either a pod or one station along a trail) which has been identified for observations during the outdoor gym audit. If the outdoor gym location is classified as a pod/trail, the pod will be selected for observation. At all target areas, one trained research assistant will conduct the observations from a position where the outdoor gym equipment is clearly visible. SOPARC-RT will employ similar recording procedures for ‘jogging tracks’ as per the original SOPARC protocol [48] for all parks regardless of outdoor gym type, and each observation period (shift) will result in 2 h-long observations, as opposed to systematic scans as used in SOPARC. The research assistant observing the target area will code each individual by gender (i.e., woman, man, unsure), and perceived age category (i.e., adult [18–59 years], or senior [60 years or older]). The SOPARC-RT observation tool is attached in supplementary material 3.

The observation schedule will cover two days per park (i.e., one weekday and one weekend day). Each day will be divided into three observation shifts: morning (0600–0800 on weekdays, 0630–0830 on weekends), midday (1200–1400), and evening (1600–1800) [41,48]. Cancelled shifts due to inclement weather (e.g., actual or threat of heavy rain and/or thunderstorm) will be replaced on the following day or on the same day of the subsequent week if weather remains inclement [41,48]. Baseline and follow-up (3-months) observations will be conducted by a team of research assistants over a four-week period at baseline, and 3-months. Pair-matched parks will be observed on the same days. Conducting observations on different days and times over a set period of time is a typical approach for outdoor park observational studies monitoring physical activity [49]. Each park will be assessed over two days with three observation periods per day, totalling six observation periods at baseline and six observation periods at follow-up (3-months). The total number of people observed across these six observation periods will be summed separately for the baseline and follow-up assessments.

2.7.2 Secondary implementation outcomes/measures

2.7.2.1 Dose received

‘Dose received (exposure)’ will also be assessed by the number of logged workouts completed amongst participants, assessed at three- and six-months. Data relating to additional characteristics of ‘dose received (exposure)’ will also be evaluated at three- and six-months, including assessment of (i) changes in the workout difficulty time-period by individuals, (ii) whether app users engage in different workout types, training categories or chose workouts targeting specific body parts, (iv) number of goals set and met, (v) and setting where the workouts were undertaken (i.e., home versus park-based). ‘Dose received (exposure)’ is also operationalized as the proportion of participants logging at least one workout in the app, which will be assessed at three- and six-months.

2.7.2.2 Uptake

‘Uptake’ will be defined as the total number of app registrations at three- and six-months post baseline. Only app registrations from the Newcastle and Lake Macquarie municipalities (i.e., based on postcode) and from the launch date of the promotional campaign will be included in the analysis. ‘Uptake’ will also be evaluated by the number of people attending the face-to-face workout sessions in the parks receiving Moderate implementation support by the three-month time-point. The fitness professionals conducting the park-based face-to-face workout sessions will collect count data on attendees, including perceived gender and age categories.

2.7.2.3 Fidelity of face-to-face delivery

A member of the research team will randomly observe each fitness professional on at least two occasions to assess how the individual conducted the workout sessions at the ecofit parks receiving Moderate implementation support. Adherence to the exercise protocol by the fitness professional will be measured as ‘yes’ or ‘no’ by the research team member.

2.7.3 Secondary intervention outcomes/measures

2.7.3.1 Usage

‘Usage’ will be evaluated by the number of views of the resource material (i.e., videos and text) across the ecofit platform at three- and six months.

2.7.3.2 Impact

‘Impact’ outcomes will be collected via the built-in self-assessment feature in the ecofit app at baseline, three and six-months. App notification will be sent at these time points to encourage users to conduct and enter their own self-assessed upper (i.e., push ups on toes or knees) and lower body (i.e., 60-sec sit-to-stand test) muscular fitness. The push-up and 60-sec sit-to-stand tests have demonstrated strong and moderate validity in a sample of community dwelling adults, respectively [50]. Impact is also considered to be a component of study effectiveness.

2.7.3.3 Acceptability, feasibility, and dose satisfaction of the app

Acceptability of the app will be evaluated using a process evaluation survey through the app (see supplementary material 4). Measures will include satisfaction with the content (i.e., exercises, workouts, resources) and app usability. Users will be prompted to complete the survey 6-weeks after registering an account, only data for users who have engaged with the app will be included.

2.7.4 Secondary implementation determinants

2.7.4.1 Acceptability, feasibility, and dose satisfaction of face-to-face sessions

All fitness professionals will be interviewed at the conclusion of all face-to-face training sessions; perceptions about acceptability, feasibility and satisfaction of delivering the training sessions will be explored. Acceptability and satisfaction will also be evaluated with a follow-up survey among participants who have engaged in at least one face-to-face workout session. Participants will complete these surveys directly following the face-face sessions by scanning a QR code and completing online. See supplementary material 5 for survey.

2.7.4.2 Cost-effectiveness

We will conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis by calculating the resources spent on design, adaption and implementation of the two implementation strategies. The outcomes of reach and uptake will be considered in the analyses.

2.8 Data management plans

All data will be entered into a database using unique study codes and stored securely on a password protected computer. Only a limited group of researchers will have access to the database. If any important protocol modifications occur during this study, these will be updated on the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry and the journal of publication. Before publication of the primary and secondary outcomes of this study, a deidentified dataset will be uploaded to an appropriate data repository.

2.9 Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses of the primary (i.e., reach) and secondary (except for fidelity) outcomes will be conducted with generalised linear models adjusted for the baseline value of the outcome using IBM SPSS Statistics version 30 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY) for Windows computers. These models will include fixed effect for study group, baseline value of the outcome, and stratification variables (i.e., high versus low SEIFA value). We will explore descriptive statistics and conduct a moderator analysis on the moderate implementation support strategies (i.e. face to face sessions, QR codes at park) to determine their independent impact on our primary outcome of park use. Additional exploratory sub-group analyses of the intervention effect on the primary (i.e., reach) and secondary outcomes (i.e., uptake, dose received, usage and impact) will be conducted using generalised linear models adjusted for the baseline value of the outcome (i.e., group-by-moderator) by gender (i.e., woman, man, unsure) and age (i.e., adults [18–59 years], and seniors [60 years or older]). Descriptive statistics will be used to examine the other secondary outcome of the study (i.e., fidelity) and the implementation determinants (i.e., acceptability, feasibility, dose satisfaction and cost). Sensitivity analyses will examine the robustness of the findings considering the quality of the outdoor gym facilities (based on the audit tool). Analysis of app usage data will include descriptive statistics and Cox Regression to examine time to non-usage attrition as in prior studies [51,52].

To detect a Cohen's d of 1 (strong effect), we estimate that ∼2 individuals will be observed using the outdoor gyms as intended per day per park (17 individuals in total in each group per day) assuming 80 % power and p = 0.05. Taking clustering by park into consideration and assuming an ICC of 0.05, then the design effect is 1.05, resulting in ∼3 individuals per day/park (24 individuals in total in each intervention group, total n = 48). From our previous work, this number is reasonable to expect [39,41].

3 Discussion

This protocol describes the ecofit implementation-effectiveness trial, which has been adapted from the ecofit efficacy and effectiveness trials [29,30]. Ecofit is a multi-component community-based intervention aimed at increasing participation in resistance and aerobic-based physical activity using smartphone technology, the outdoor built environment, and social support. The objective of our current trial is to test a ‘Low’ versus a ‘Moderate’ implementation support model of the ecofit intervention in two large regional municipalities in New South Wales, Australia, on the reach (primary outcome), uptake, dose received, impact and fidelity. The main innovation of this study is to test whether an mHealth intervention with additional implementation strategies can increase outdoor gym use in the community [41].

ecofit represents a novel and scalable approach for the promotion of RT using outdoor gyms and mHealth. RT interventions targeting the general population are scarce, as most studies to date have predominantly focused on clinical populations using supervised modes of delivery [[53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59]]. Outdoor gyms provide an opportune delivery setting, as facilities are being rapidly installed around the globe (including Australia), offering free and accessible workout apparatus to perform physical activities (particularly RT) [60]. Despite the large number of installations, the facilities are generally poorly used, and few interventions have been trialled to increase usage [41,60]. The ecofit app provides a potentially cost-effective tool for local government agencies to promote the use of the facilities. If the additional support strategies (i.e., app only or inclusion of face-to-face introductory sessions and QR codes promoting app downloads) are deemed effective, they will provide councils with additional approaches to increase outdoor gym use. We plan to share our study findings with our local council partners and other local government agencies.

Scaling-up interventions does not come without challenges. As interventions progress from highly controlled settings (i.e., efficacy trials) towards dissemination in real world conditions, challenges that may arise include difficulties with community recruitment, and maintaining and sustaining programs [61,62]. Scaled-up interventions delivered in more ‘real-world’ contexts generally have smaller effects than their corresponding pre-scale-up trials [63] and the combination of ‘program drift’ and ‘voltage drop’ may limit the ultimate progress toward intervention sustainability and population impact [64]. A potential challenge that may arise during our study includes long periods of inclement weather. However, if the weather impedes outdoor activities, users can access indoor workout options in the ecofit app. While the modified SOPARC will be conducted for three 2-h time -periods across one weekday and one weekend day, it will not be able to capture any usage outside of these time-periods. Including longer surveillance of the outdoor gyms is not possible due to financial constraint; this is a limitation of the current study. Finally, given the nature of being a mHealth intervention, technological challenges with the smartphone app may also arise. The app, however, includes a ‘feedback and question’ section, allowing consumers to directly notify the researchers should they experience any challenges.

4 Conclusion

This paper has outlined the rationale and study protocol for the ecofit implementation trial, which will be implemented across 16 outdoor gym locations in two large regional municipalities, Australia. This implementation-effectiveness trial provides a novel protocol, that is scalable, to evaluate a resistance-focused physical activity intervention using mHealth and outdoor gyms across the broader community.

Funding

This work is supported by the 10.13039/501100000925 National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (Grant number: APP1134914 ).

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Anna K. Jansson: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Software, Resources, Methodology, Conceptualization. David R. Lubans: Writing – review & editing, Software, Resources, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. Mitch J. Duncan: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Software, Resources, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. Jordan J. Smith: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Resources, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. Adrian Bauman: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. John Attia: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Resources, Methodology, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. Sara L. Robards: Writing – review & editing, Resources, Methodology, Conceptualization. Emily R. Cox: Writing – review & editing, Resources. Sam Beacroft: Writing – review & editing, Methodology, Conceptualization. Ronald C. Plotnikoff: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Resources, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Appendix A Supplementary data

The following are the Supplementary data to this article.Multimedia component 1

Multimedia component 1

Multimedia component 2

Multimedia component 2

Multimedia component 3

Multimedia component 3

Multimedia component 4

Multimedia component 4

Multimedia component 5

Multimedia component 5

Data availability

No data was used for the research described in the article.

Appendix A Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2024.101358.
==== Refs
References

1 Organization WH Global Status Report on Noncommunicable Diseases 2014 2014 World Health Organization
2 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Impact of Physical Inactivity as a Risk Factor for Chronic Conditions Australian Burden of Disease Study 2017 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Canberra
3 Crosland P. Ananthapavan J. Davison J. Lambert M. Carter R. The economic cost of preventable disease in Australia: a systematic review of estimates and methods Aust. N. Z. J. Publ. Health 43 5 2019 484 495
4 Bull F.C. Al-Ansari S.S. Biddle S. Borodulin K. Buman M.P. Cardon G. World Health Organization 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour Br. J. Sports Med. 54 24 2020 1451 33239350
5 Garcia-Mateo P. Garcia-de-Alcaraz A. Rodriguez-Perez M.A. Alcaraz-Ibanez M. Effects of resistance training on arterial stiffness in healthy people: a systematic review J. Sports Sci. Med. 19 3 2020 444 451 32874096
6 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Muscle strengthening activities among Australian adults Welfare AIoHa 2020 AIHW Canberra
7 Bennie J.A. Pedisic Z. van Uffelen J.G. Charity M.J. Harvey J.T. Banting L.K. Pumping iron in Australia: prevalence, trends and sociodemographic correlates of muscle strengthening activity participation from a national sample of 195,926 adults PLoS One 11 4 2016 e0153225
8 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Australia's Health 2020: in Brief 2020 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Canberra AIHW
9 Humphries B. Stanton R. Scanlan A. Duncan M.J. The prevalence and performance of resistance exercise training activities in an Australian population in relation to health authority guidelines J. Sci. Med. Sport 21 6 2018 616 620 29033146
10 Yarizadeh H. Eftekhar R. Anjom-Shoae J. Speakman J.R. Djafarian K. The effect of aerobic and resistance training and combined exercise modalities on subcutaneous abdominal fat: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials Adv. Nutr. 12 1 2021 179 196 32804997
11 Tan S. Li W. Wang J. Effects of six months of combined aerobic and resistance training for elderly patients with a long history of type 2 diabetes J. Sports Sci. Med. 11 3 2012 495 501 24149359
12 Lee J. Lee R. Stone A.J. Combined aerobic and resistance training for peak oxygen uptake, muscle strength, and hypertrophy after coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research 13 4 2020 601 611 31656988
13 Lee J. Stone A.J. Combined aerobic and resistance training for cardiorespiratory fitness, muscle strength, and walking capacity after Stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis J. Stroke Cerebrovasc. Dis. 29 1 2020 104498
14 Pierson L.M. Herbert W.G. Norton H.J. Kiebzak G.M. Griffith P. Fedor J.M. Effects of combined aerobic and resistance training versus aerobic training alone in cardiac rehabilitation J. Cardpulm. Rehabil. 21 2 2001 101 110
15 Marzolini S. Oh P.I. Brooks D. Effect of combined aerobic and resistance training versus aerobic training alone in individuals with coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis European Journal of Preventive Cardiology 19 1 2012 81 94 21450617
16 Duncan M.J. Oftedal S. Kline C.E. Plotnikoff R.C. Holliday E.G. Associations between aerobic and muscle-strengthening physical activity, sleep duration, and risk of all-cause mortality: a prospective cohort study of 282,473 U.S. adults J Sport Health Sci 12 1 2023 65 72 35872092
17 Reis R.S. Salvo D. Ogilvie D. Lambert E.V. Goenka S. Brownson R.C. Scaling up physical activity interventions worldwide: stepping up to larger and smarter approaches to get people moving Lancet (London, England) 388 10051 2016 1337 1348 27475273
18 Milat A.J. King L. Bauman A.E. Redman S. The concept of scalability: increasing the scale and potential adoption of health promotion interventions into policy and practice Health Promot. Int. 28 3 2013 285 298 22241853
19 World Health Organization Nine Steps for Developing a Scaling-Up Strategy 2010
20 De Cocker K.A. De Bourdeaudhuij I.M. Brown W.J. Cardon G.M. Effects of "10,000 steps Ghent": a whole-community intervention Am. J. Prev. Med. 33 6 2007 455 463 18022061
21 Vandelanotte C. Van Itallie A. Brown W. Mummery W.K. Duncan M.J. Every step counts: understanding the success of implementing the 10,000 steps project Stud. Health Technol. Inf. 268 2020 15 30
22 Duncan M.J. Brown W.J. Mummery W.K. Vandelanotte C. 10,000 Steps Australia: a community-wide eHealth physical activity promotion programme Br. J. Sports Med. 52 14 2018 885 28870978
23 Minges K.E. Cormick G. Unglik E. Dunstan D.W. Evaluation of a resistance training program for adults with or at risk of developing diabetes: an effectiveness study in a community setting Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Activ. 8 1 2011 50
24 Teychenne M. Ball K. Salmon J. Daly R.M. Crawford D.A. Sethi P. Adoption and maintenance of gym-based strength training in the community setting in adults with excess weight or type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Activ. 12 2015 105
25 Kennedy S.G. Smith J.J. Estabrooks P.A. Nathan N. Noetel M. Morgan P.J. Evaluating the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance of the Resistance Training for Teens program Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Activ. 18 1 2021 122
26 Rhodes R.E. Lubans D.R. Karunamuni N. Kennedy S. Plotnikoff R. Factors associated with participation in resistance training: a systematic review Br. J. Sports Med. 51 20 2017 1466 1472 28404558
27 Ashton R.E. Tew G.A. Aning J.J. Gilbert S.E. Lewis L. Saxton J.M. Effects of short-term, medium-term and long-term resistance exercise training on cardiometabolic health outcomes in adults: systematic review with meta-analysis Br. J. Sports Med. 54 6 2020 341 29934430
28 Strain T. Fitzsimons C. Kelly P. Mutrie N. The forgotten guidelines: cross-sectional analysis of participation in muscle strengthening and balance & co-ordination activities by adults and older adults in Scotland BMC Publ. Health 16 1 2016 1108
29 Plotnikoff R.C. Jansson A.K. Duncan M.J. Smith J.J. Bauman A. Attia J. mHealth to support outdoor gym resistance training: the ecofit effectiveness RCT Am. J. Prev. Med. 64 6 2023 853 864 36804197
30 Plotnikoff R.C. Wilczynska M. Cohen K.E. Smith J.J. Lubans D.R. Integrating smartphone technology, social support and the outdoor physical environment to improve fitness among adults at risk of, or diagnosed with, Type 2 Diabetes: findings from the 'eCoFit' randomized controlled trial Prev. Med. 105 2017 404 411 28887192
31 Jansson A.K. Lubans D.R. Smith J.J. Duncan M.J. Bauman A. Attia J. Integrating smartphone technology, social support and the outdoor built environment to promote community-based aerobic and resistance-based physical activity: rationale and study protocol for the ‘ecofit’ randomized controlled trial Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications 2019 100457
32 Wilczynska M. Lubans D.R. Cohen K.E. Smith J.J. Robards S.L. Plotnikoff R.C. Rationale and study protocol for the 'eCoFit' randomized controlled trial: integrating smartphone technology, social support and the outdoor physical environment to improve health-related fitness among adults at risk of, or diagnosed with, Type 2 Diabetes Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications 49 2016 116 125
33 Milat A.J. Bauman A.E. Redman S. Curac N. Public health research outputs from efficacy to dissemination: a bibliometric analysis BMC Publ. Health 11 1 2011 934
34 Bauman A. Nutbeam D. Evaluation in a Nutshell: a Practical Guide to the Evaluation of Health Promotion Programs 2013 McGraw-hill
35 Skivington K. Matthews L. Simpson S.A. Craig P. Baird J. Blazeby J.M. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance Br. Med. J. 374 2021 n2061 34593508
36 Damschroder L.J. Reardon C.M. Widerquist M.A.O. Lowery J. The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback Implement. Sci. 17 1 2022 75 36309746
37 Curran G.M. Bauer M. Mittman B. Pyne J.M. Stetler C. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact Med. Care 50 3 2012 217 226 22310560
38 Pinnock H. Barwick M. Carpenter C.R. Eldridge S. Grandes G. Griffiths C.J. Standards for reporting implementation studies (StaRI) statement BMJ 356 2017 i6795 28264797
39 Duncan M.J. Bell T. Austin G. The effect of local neighbourhood park redevelopments on park visitations and user physical activity levels: a pe–post test evaluation J. Publ. Health 30 11 2022 2665 2671
40 Statistics ABo Census of Population and Housing: Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) 2016 Australia, 2011. cat no 20330 55001
41 Jansson A.K. Lubans D.R. Duncan M.J. Smith J.J. Plotnikoff M. Robards S.L. Descriptive epidemiology of outdoor gym use in an Australian regional setting J. Publ. Health 30 2022 159 165
42 Jansson A.K. Lubans D.R. Smith J.J. Duncan M.J. Hansen V. Plotnikoff R.C. A qualitative study exploring people's experience with the multicomponent community-based physical activity intervention ecofit during the COVID-19 pandemic J. Phys. Activ. Health 19 3 2022 168 176
43 Abraham C. Michie S. A taxonomy of behavior change techniques used in interventions Health Psychol. 27 3 2008 379 387 18624603
44 Jansson A.K. Duncan M.J. Bauman A. Smith J.J. Lubans D.R. Attia J. A mobile health resistance training intervention using outdoor gym equipment: process evaluation of the ecofit effectiveness randomized controlled trial J. Phys. Activ. Health 2024 1 8
45 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans second ed. 2018 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Washington, DC
46 Lee E. Jang J. Research trend analysis for sustainable QR code use - focus on big data analysis KSII transactions on Internet and information systems 15 9 2021 3221 3242
47 McKay H. Naylor P.-J. Lau E. Gray S.M. Wolfenden L. Milat A. Implementation and scale-up of physical activity and behavioural nutrition interventions: an evaluation roadmap Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Activ. 16 1 2019 102
48 McKenzie T.L. Cohen D.A. Sehgal A. Williamson S. Golinelli D. System for observing Play and recreation in Communities (SOPARC): reliability and feasibility measures J. Phys. Activ. Health 3 s1 2006 S208 S222
49 Duncan M.J. Bell T. Austin G. The effect of local neighbourhood park redevelopments on park visitations and user physical activity levels: a pre–post test evaluation J. Publ. Health 30 11 2022 2665 2671
50 Jansson A.K. Lubans D.R. Duncan M.J. Smith J.J. Bauman A. Attia J. Validity of muscular fitness self-assessments in the ecofit smartphone application: a correlation study PLoS One 17 12 2022 e0278374
51 Rayward A.T. Murawski B. Duncan M.J. Holliday E.G. Vandelanotte C. Brown W.J. Efficacy of an m-health physical activity and sleep intervention to improve sleep quality in middle-aged adults: the refresh study randomized controlled trial Ann. Behav. Med. 54 7 2020 470 483 31942918
52 Rayward A.T. Vandelanotte C. Van Itallie A. Duncan M.J. The association between logging steps using a website, app, or fitbit and engaging with the 10,000 steps physical activity program: observational study J. Med. Internet Res. 23 6 2021 e22151
53 Liao W.-H. Chen J.-W. Chen X. Lin L. Yan H.-Y. Zhou Y.-Q. Impact of resistance training in subjects with COPD: a systematic review and meta-analysis Respir. Care 60 8 2015 1130 1145 26015595
54 Li X. He J. Yun J. Qin H. Lower limb resistance training in individuals with Parkinson's Disease: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Front. Neurol. 11 2020 591605
55 Chung C.L.H. Thilarajah S. Tan D. Effectiveness of resistance training on muscle strength and physical function in people with Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis Clin. Rehabil. 30 1 2016 11 23 25691582
56 Liu Y. Ye W. Chen Q. Zhang Y. Kuo C.-H. Korivi M. Resistance exercise intensity is correlated with attenuation of HbA1c and insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 16 1 2019 140
57 Acosta-Manzano P. Rodriguez-Ayllon M. Acosta F.M. Niederseer D. Niebauer J. Beyond general resistance training. Hypertrophy versus muscular endurance training as therapeutic interventions in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis Obes. Rev. 21 6 2020 e13007
58 Lopez P. Taaffe D.R. Newton R.U. Galvao D.A. Resistance exercise dosage in men with prostate cancer: systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 53 3 2021 459 469 32890199
59 Chen Z. Zhang Y. Lu C. Zeng H. Schumann M. Cheng S. Supervised physical training enhances muscle strength but not muscle mass in prostate cancer patients undergoing androgen deprivation therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis Front. Physiol. 10 2019 843 31333495
60 Jansson A.K. Lubans D.R. Smith J.J. Duncan M.J. Haslam R. Plotnikoff R.C. A systematic review of outdoor gym use: current evidence and future directions J. Sci. Med. Sport 22 12 2019 1335 1343 31444034
61 Beets M.W. Weaver R.G. Ioannidis J.P.A. Geraci M. Brazendale K. Decker L. Identification and evaluation of risk of generalizability biases in pilot versus efficacy/effectiveness trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Activ. 17 1 2020 19
62 Crane M. Nathan N. McKay H. Lee K. Wiggers J. Bauman A. Understanding the sustainment of population health programmes from a whole-of-system approach Health Res. Pol. Syst. 20 1 2022 37
63 Lane C. McCrabb S. Nathan N. Naylor P.-J. Bauman A. Milat A. How effective are physical activity interventions when they are scaled-up: a systematic review Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Activ. 18 1 2021 16
64 Chambers D.A. Glasgow R.E. Stange K.C. The dynamic sustainability framework: addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change Implement. Sci. 8 2013 117 24088228
