| Literature DB >> 30720781 |
Nicola McWhannell1, Lawrence Foweather2, Lee E F Graves3, Jayne L Henaghan4, Nicola D Ridgers5, Gareth Stratton6.
Abstract
This paper outlines the implementation of a programme of work that started with the development of a population-level children's health, fitness and lifestyle study in 1996 (SportsLinx) leading to selected interventions one of which is described in detail: the Active City of Liverpool, Active Schools and SportsLinx (A-CLASS) Project. The A-CLASS Project aimed to quantify the effectiveness of structured and unstructured physical activity (PA) programmes on children's PA, fitness, body composition, bone health, cardiac and vascular structures, fundamental movement skills, physical self-perception and self-esteem. The study was a four-arm parallel-group school-based cluster randomised controlled trial (clinical trials no. NCT02963805), and compared different exposure groups: a high intensity PA (HIPA) group, a fundamental movement skill (FMS) group, a PA signposting (PASS) group and a control group, in a two-schools-per-condition design. Baseline findings indicate that children's fundamental movement skill competence levels are low-to-moderate, yet these skills are inversely associated with percentage body fat. Outcomes of this project will make an important contribution to the design and implementation of children's PA promotion initiatives.Entities:
Keywords: cardiovascular; fitness; fundamental movement skill; intervention; obesity; physical activity; physical self-perception
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30720781 PMCID: PMC5923624 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15040582
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1A-CLASS intervention design. Note: HIPA refers to High Intensity Physical Activity intervention; FMS refers to Fundamental Movement Skill intervention; PASS refers to Physical Activity Signposting Scheme intervention, CONT refers to the Control. T0 = baseline data collection (September 2006–mid-October 2006); T1 = 9 months post-intervention follow-up (June–mid-July 2007); T2 = 3 year follow-up (October 2009).
Fundamental movement skill test battery and assessment criteria.
| Skill | Task | Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Hop as fast as you can over a distance of 15 m | 1. Support leg is bent in preparation and then straightens to push off | |
| Jump and touch the wall as high as you can | 1. Eyes focused forwards or upwards throughout the jump | |
| Dodge through a series of cones placed in zig-zag formation, 3 m apart | 1. Bend knees during change of direction | |
| Run a distance of 30 m as fast as possible | 1. Lands on balls of feet | |
| Kick a size 4 football towards a target as hard as possible | 1. Eyes are focussed on the ball throughout the kick | |
| Catch a tennis ball thrown underarm between 2–3 m high, and from a distance of 10 m | 1. Eyes are focused on the ball throughout the catch | |
| Throw a tennis ball overarm as far as possible | 1. Eyes are focused on the target throughout the throw | |
| Using a t-ball stand and a foam baseball bat, hit a tennis ball as far as possible | 1. Stand side-on to target |
Figure 2School and participant flow to baseline assessments. Note: HIPA, High Intensity Physical Activity intervention; FMS, Fundamental Movement Skill intervention; PASS, Physical Activity Signposting Scheme intervention.
Descriptive statistics for children.
| Characteristics | Total ( | Boys ( | Girls ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 9.6 (0.3) | 9.6 (0.3) | 9.6 (0.3) | 0.913 |
| Maturity offset (years) | −2.4 (0.8) | −3.3 (0.5) | −1.9 (0.5) | 0.000 ** |
| Stature (cm) | 138.5 (6.4) | 138.9 (6.5) | 138.3 (6.3) | 0.556 |
| Mass (kg) | 36.7 (8.4) | 37.0 (8.9) | 36.5 (8.1) | 0.737 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 18.9 (3.2) | 18.9 (3.4) | 18.9 (3.1) | 0.997 |
| Body fat (%) | 27.6 (6.5) | 24.9 (6.9) | 29.3 (5.7) | 0.000 ** |
| Hop | 4.0 (1.2) | 4.2 (1.2) | 3.9 (1.2) | 0.126 |
| Vertical jump | 4.0 (0.8) | 4.1 (0.8) | 4.0 (0.8) | 0.666 |
| Sprint run | 3.5 (1.1) | 3.5 (1.2) | 3.5 (1.0) | 0.934 |
| Dodge | 2.8 (1.4) | 3.3 (1.4) | 2.5 (1.4) | 0.001 ** |
| Kick | 3.5 (1.5) | 4.5 (1.4) | 2.9 (1.1) | 0.000 ** |
| Catch | 3.4 (1.7) | 4.5 (1.3) | 2.7 (1.6) | 0.000 ** |
| Throw | 3.3 (1.7) | 4.7 (1.2) | 2.4 (1.3) | 0.000 ** |
| Strike | 3.4 (1.5) | 4.4 (1.2) | 2.9 (1.2) | 0.000 ** |
| Locomotor skills | 14.4 (3.3) | 15.1 (3.4) | 13.9 (3.1) | 0.028 * |
| Object control skills | 13.6 (5.1) | 18.2 (3.7) | 10.7 (3.4) | 0.000 ** |
| Total skill score | 28.0 (7.1) | 33.3 (5.9) | 24.6 (5.5) | 0.000 ** |
Note: p-value for significance of independent t-test examining differences between boys and girls: * Significant effect p < 0.01; ** Significant effect p < 0.05.
Figure 3Prevalence of proficiency at fundamental movement skills (** p < 0.01).
Results from linear regressions with fundamental movement skills as predictors of percentage body fat (adjusting for sex, maturity offset, ethnicity, deprivation).
| Predictor | β | SE | 95% CI | r2 | sri2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total skill score | −0.27 | 0.08 | −0.43 to −0.12 | 0.001 | 40.7% | 5.2% |
| Locomotor skills | −0.88 | 0.14 | −1.14 to −0.61 | 0.000 | 50.6% | 15.0% |
| Object-control skills | 0.26 | 0.12 | 0.02 to 0.51 | 0.036 | 2% |
Notes. β = unstandardised regression coefficient, beta values reflect differences in percentage body fat for every 1 measured unit of each skill predictor variable; SE = standard error for β coefficient; 95% CI = 95% confidence intervals for regression coefficient; r2 = total variance explained by model (Model 1: total skill score, sex, maturity offset, ethnicity, deprivation; Model 2: Locomotor skill score, Object-control skill score, sex, maturity offset, ethnicity, deprivation score); sri² = squared semi-partial correlation coefficient, unique variance explained by predictor.