Natalie Pearson1, Rock Braithwaite2, Stuart J H Biddle3. 1. School of Sport, Exercise & Health Sciences, Loughborough University, UK. 2. Department of Kinesiology and Recreation Administration, Humboldt State University, Arcata, Calif. 3. School of Sport, Exercise & Health Sciences, Loughborough University, UK; NIHR Leicester-Loughborough Diet, Lifestyle and Physical Activity Biomedical Research Unit, UK. Electronic address: stuart.biddle@vu.edu.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research has shown that a clear decline in physical activity among girls starting in early adolescence. Therefore, adolescent girls have been identified as a key target population for physical activity behavior change. The quantification of intervention effectiveness for this group has not been previously reported in a meta-analysis, and this therefore was the objective of the current meta-analysis. STUDY SELECTION: Included were interventions in which the main component, or 1 of the components, was aimed at promoting physical activity through behavior change in any setting. Interventions had to include a non-physical activity control group or comparison group, and include a quantitative outcome assessment of physical activity behavior in girls aged 12 to 18 years. DATA SOURCES: Science Direct, PubMed, PsychINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Libraries, and EPPI Centre databases were searched up to and including May 2013. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Forty-five studies (k = 34 independent samples) were eligible from an initial 13,747 references. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted. RESULTS: The average treatment effect for adolescent girls involved in physical activity interventions was significant but small (g = 0.350, 95% confidence interval 0.12, 0.58, P < .001). Moderator analyses showed larger effects for interventions that were theory based, performed in schools, were girls only, with younger girls, used multicomponent strategies, and involved targeting both physical activity and sedentary behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to increase physical activity in adolescent girls show small but significant effects, suggesting that behavior change may be challenging. Results suggest some approaches that appear to be successful.
BACKGROUND: Research has shown that a clear decline in physical activity among girls starting in early adolescence. Therefore, adolescent girls have been identified as a key target population for physical activity behavior change. The quantification of intervention effectiveness for this group has not been previously reported in a meta-analysis, and this therefore was the objective of the current meta-analysis. STUDY SELECTION: Included were interventions in which the main component, or 1 of the components, was aimed at promoting physical activity through behavior change in any setting. Interventions had to include a non-physical activity control group or comparison group, and include a quantitative outcome assessment of physical activity behavior in girls aged 12 to 18 years. DATA SOURCES: Science Direct, PubMed, PsychINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Libraries, and EPPI Centre databases were searched up to and including May 2013. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Forty-five studies (k = 34 independent samples) were eligible from an initial 13,747 references. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted. RESULTS: The average treatment effect for adolescent girls involved in physical activity interventions was significant but small (g = 0.350, 95% confidence interval 0.12, 0.58, P < .001). Moderator analyses showed larger effects for interventions that were theory based, performed in schools, were girls only, with younger girls, used multicomponent strategies, and involved targeting both physical activity and sedentary behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to increase physical activity in adolescent girls show small but significant effects, suggesting that behavior change may be challenging. Results suggest some approaches that appear to be successful.
Authors: Nicole Zarrett; Lauren H Law; Dawn K Wilson; Michelle Abraczinskas; Stephen Taylor; Brittany S Cook; Alex Roberts Journal: J Behav Med Date: 2021-03-07
Authors: Yelena P Wu; Elizabeth Nagelhout; Lisa G Aspinwall; Kenneth M Boucher; Bridget G Parsons; Wendy Kohlmann; Kimberly A Kaphingst; Sheila Homburger; Ryan D Perkins; Douglas Grossman; Garrett Harding; Sancy A Leachman Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2017-10-19
Authors: George C Patton; Susan M Sawyer; John S Santelli; David A Ross; Rima Afifi; Nicholas B Allen; Monika Arora; Peter Azzopardi; Wendy Baldwin; Christopher Bonell; Ritsuko Kakuma; Elissa Kennedy; Jaqueline Mahon; Terry McGovern; Ali H Mokdad; Vikram Patel; Suzanne Petroni; Nicola Reavley; Kikelomo Taiwo; Jane Waldfogel; Dakshitha Wickremarathne; Carmen Barroso; Zulfiqar Bhutta; Adesegun O Fatusi; Amitabh Mattoo; Judith Diers; Jing Fang; Jane Ferguson; Frederick Ssewamala; Russell M Viner Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Russell Jago; Mark J Edwards; Simon J Sebire; Keeley Tomkinson; Emma L Bird; Kathryn Banfield; Thomas May; Joanna M Kesten; Ashley R Cooper; Jane E Powell; Peter S Blair Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2015-10-06 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Alwyn S Todd; Steven J Street; Jenny Ziviani; Nuala M Byrne; Andrew P Hills Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2015-02-17 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Simon J Sebire; Joanna M Kesten; Mark J Edwards; Thomas May; Kathryn Banfield; Keeley Tomkinson; Peter S Blair; Emma L Bird; Jane E Powell; Russell Jago Journal: Psychol Sport Exerc Date: 2016-05