E Norris1, N Shelton2, S Dunsmuir3, O Duke-Williams4, E Stamatakis5. 1. Department of Epidemiology & Public Health, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HB, UK. Electronic address: e.norris.11@ucl.ac.uk. 2. Department of Epidemiology & Public Health, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HB, UK. 3. Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, 26 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0DS, UK. 4. Department of Information Studies, University College London, Foster Court, London WC1E 6BT, UK. 5. Department of Epidemiology & Public Health, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HB, UK; Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia; Exercise & Sport Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Physically active lessons aim to increase children's physical activity whilst maintaining academic time. This systematic review aimed to investigate the methods used in such interventions and their effects on physical activity and educational outcomes. METHODS: In March 2014; PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO and ERIC electronic databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were: 1. Classroom lessons containing both PA and educational elements; 2. intervention studies featuring a control group or within-subjects baseline measurement period; 3. any age-group; and 4. English language. Studies assessing physically active lessons within complex interventions were excluded. Data were extracted onto a standardised form. Risk of bias was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) tool. RESULTS: Eleven studies were identified: five examined physical activity outcomes only, three examined educational outcomes only and three examined both physical activity and educational outcomes. All studies found improved physical activity following physically active lessons: either in the whole intervention group or in specific demographics. Educational outcomes either significantly improved or were no different compared to inactive teaching. Studies ranged from low to high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Encouraging evidence of improved physical activity and educational outcomes following physically active lessons is provided. However, too few studies exist to draw firm conclusions. Future high-quality studies with longer intervention periods are warranted.
OBJECTIVE: Physically active lessons aim to increase children's physical activity whilst maintaining academic time. This systematic review aimed to investigate the methods used in such interventions and their effects on physical activity and educational outcomes. METHODS: In March 2014; PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO and ERIC electronic databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were: 1. Classroom lessons containing both PA and educational elements; 2. intervention studies featuring a control group or within-subjects baseline measurement period; 3. any age-group; and 4. English language. Studies assessing physically active lessons within complex interventions were excluded. Data were extracted onto a standardised form. Risk of bias was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) tool. RESULTS: Eleven studies were identified: five examined physical activity outcomes only, three examined educational outcomes only and three examined both physical activity and educational outcomes. All studies found improved physical activity following physically active lessons: either in the whole intervention group or in specific demographics. Educational outcomes either significantly improved or were no different compared to inactive teaching. Studies ranged from low to high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Encouraging evidence of improved physical activity and educational outcomes following physically active lessons is provided. However, too few studies exist to draw firm conclusions. Future high-quality studies with longer intervention periods are warranted.
Authors: Vanessa L Errisuriz; Erin E Dooley; Katie G Burford; Ashleigh M Johnson; Esbelle M Jowers; John B Bartholomew Journal: Prev Sci Date: 2021-04-02
Authors: Nandu Goswami; Dominique Hansen; Goran Gumze; Bianca Brix; Karin Schmid-Zalaudek; Per Morten Fredriksen Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-06-03
Authors: Timothy J Walker; Derek W Craig; Michael C Robertson; Jacob Szeszulski; Maria E Fernandez Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2021-04-07 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Emma Norris; Nicola Shelton; Sandra Dunsmuir; Oliver Duke-Williams; Emmanuel Stamatakis Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-04-11 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Michael W Beets; Anthony Okely; R Glenn Weaver; Collin Webster; David Lubans; Tim Brusseau; Russ Carson; Dylan P Cliff Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2016-11-16 Impact factor: 6.457