Mixed-methods evaluation reveals GEM significantly improved access and enjoyment of physical activity, suggesting a need for girl-centric opportunities.
Background : Middle school girls are less likely than boys to meet physical activity (PA) recommendations. Girls Empowering Movement (GEM) is an out-of-school time PA-based initiative to address this inequity. Purpose : This study evaluated the impact of GEM on participant access to girl-only PA opportunities and enjoyment. Methods : From 2021 to 2023, GEM was offered in middle schools throughout Georgia. We used a mixed-methods approach, guided by the RE-AIM framework to evaluate Reach (number and representativeness of participants), Effectiveness (increased opportunities for PA and PA enjoyment), Adoption (program adoption rate and school characteristics), Implementation (description of implementation and changes made), and Maintenance (percentage of schools that continued the program across years). Data were collected using pre- and postprogram questionnaires, focus groups, external public databases, and program documents. Descriptive statistics were used for reach, representativeness, participant or school characteristics, and program component completion. Focus group interviews were analyzed using a multiphase approach. Results : GEM reached 2,237 participants from 51 schools across Georgia. The program increased access to free, girl-only PA opportunities by 92.3%, and 7,745 people were reached through the Create-A-Movement projects. Three themes emerged related to participant and program leader satisfaction: (a) a supportive social environment is important, (b) interest in PA, and (c) looking forward. Most (79.6%) schools maintained the program between program years. Conclusions : Out-of-school time PA programs like GEM can increase access to and enjoyment of PA opportunities for girls. The positive associations with PA through GEM emphasize the importance of centering youth voice and noncompetitive PA environments for girls.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Davis et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: