R Borde1, J J Smith2, R Sutherland3,4,5, N Nathan3,4,5, D R Lubans2. 1. Division of Training and Movement Sciences, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany. 2. Priority Research Centre in Physical Activity and Nutrition, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia. 3. Hunter New England Population Health, Wallsend, NSW, Australia. 4. School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia. 5. Hunter Medical Research Institute, Lambton, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis are (i) to determine the impact of school-based interventions on objectively measured physical activity among adolescents and (ii) to examine accelerometer methods and decision rule reporting in previous interventions. METHODS: A systematic search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials targeting adolescents (age: ≥10 years), conducted in the school setting, and reporting objectively measured physical activity. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted to determine the pooled effects of previous interventions on total and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. Potential moderators of intervention effects were also explored. RESULTS: Thirteen articles met the inclusion criteria, and twelve were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled effects were small and non-significant for both total physical activity (standardized mean difference = 0.02 [95% confidence interval = -0.13 to 0.18]) and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (standardized mean difference = 0.24 [95% confidence interval = -0.08 to 0.56]). Sample age and accelerometer compliance were significant moderators for total physical activity, with a younger sample and higher compliance associated with larger effects. CONCLUSION: Previous school-based physical activity interventions targeting adolescents have been largely unsuccessful, particularly for older adolescents. There is a need for more high-quality research using objective monitoring in this population. Future interventions should comply with best-practice recommendations regarding physical activity monitoring protocols.
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis are (i) to determine the impact of school-based interventions on objectively measured physical activity among adolescents and (ii) to examine accelerometer methods and decision rule reporting in previous interventions. METHODS: A systematic search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials targeting adolescents (age: ≥10 years), conducted in the school setting, and reporting objectively measured physical activity. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted to determine the pooled effects of previous interventions on total and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. Potential moderators of intervention effects were also explored. RESULTS: Thirteen articles met the inclusion criteria, and twelve were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled effects were small and non-significant for both total physical activity (standardized mean difference = 0.02 [95% confidence interval = -0.13 to 0.18]) and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (standardized mean difference = 0.24 [95% confidence interval = -0.08 to 0.56]). Sample age and accelerometer compliance were significant moderators for total physical activity, with a younger sample and higher compliance associated with larger effects. CONCLUSION: Previous school-based physical activity interventions targeting adolescents have been largely unsuccessful, particularly for older adolescents. There is a need for more high-quality research using objective monitoring in this population. Future interventions should comply with best-practice recommendations regarding physical activity monitoring protocols.
Authors: David R Lubans; Jordan J Smith; Narelle Eather; Angus A Leahy; Philip J Morgan; Chris Lonsdale; Ronald C Plotnikoff; Michael Nilsson; Sarah G Kennedy; Elizabeth G Holliday; Natasha Weaver; Michael Noetel; Tatsuya T Shigeta; Myrto F Mavilidi; Sarah R Valkenborghs; Prajwal Gyawali; Frederick R Walker; Sarah A Costigan; Charles H Hillman Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2020-12-21 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: Anthony D Okely; David R Lubans; Philip J Morgan; Wayne Cotton; Louisa Peralta; Judith Miller; Marijka Batterham; Xanne Janssen Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Jakob Tarp; Eva Jespersen; Niels Christian Møller; Heidi Klakk; Barbara Wessner; Niels Wedderkopp; Anna Bugge Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Anna E Chalkley; Ash C Routen; Jo P Harris; Lorraine A Cale; Trish Gorely; Lauren B Sherar Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-05-14 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Deirdre M Harrington; Melanie J Davies; Danielle H Bodicoat; Joanna M Charles; Yogini V Chudasama; Trish Gorely; Kamlesh Khunti; Tatiana Plekhanova; Alex V Rowlands; Lauren B Sherar; Rhiannon Tudor Edwards; Thomas Yates; Charlotte L Edwardson Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2018-04-25 Impact factor: 6.457