Anne-Maree Parrish1,2, Kar Hau Chong3,4, Abbe L Moriarty5, Marijka Batterham6, Nicola D Ridgers5. 1. Early Start, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia. aparrish@uow.edu.au. 2. School of Health and Society, Faculty of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, 2521, Australia. aparrish@uow.edu.au. 3. Early Start, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia. 4. School of Education, Faculty of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia. 5. Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia. 6. School of Mathematics and Applied Statistics, Faculty of Engineering and Information Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The school environment is globally recognised as a key setting to promote child and adolescent physical activity. School recess contributes up to 40% of the school day and recommended physical activity levels, providing a critical physical activity promotion opportunity for children and adolescents. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of school recess interventions on children's and adolescents' physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour (SED) during this time. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: EBSCOhost (Academic Search Complete, Education Source, ERIC, Global Health, MEDLINE complete, SPORTDiscus), Scopus, and ProQuest electronic databases with full text. RESULTS: Forty-three studies were included in the systematic review, trialling eight different intervention strategies including loose equipment, structured recess, and multicomponent studies. The meta-analysis included 16 studies. Overall, between group mean difference for: (i) time spent in moderate to vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 6) was 0.18 (95% CI - 0.00 to 0.36) with a marginal significant effect of Z = 1.93 (p = 0.05), (ii) time spent in MVPA for non-RCTs (n = 7) was 0.52 (95% CI - 0.01 to 1.03) with an overall effect of Z = 1.99 (p = 0.05), (iii) time spent in sedentary behaviour for RCTs (n = 3) was - 0.48 (95% CI - 1.38 to 0.43) with an overall effect of Z = 1.03 (p = 0.30). All outcomes had high heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: School recess interventions show promise for increasing MVPA. It was difficult to draw strong conclusions due to low study numbers in the meta-analysis and varied intervention designs. Interventions may need to focus on single component strategies (e.g., loose equipment) to improve understanding of outcome effects for future studies.
BACKGROUND: The school environment is globally recognised as a key setting to promote child and adolescent physical activity. School recess contributes up to 40% of the school day and recommended physical activity levels, providing a critical physical activity promotion opportunity for children and adolescents. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of school recess interventions on children's and adolescents' physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour (SED) during this time. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: EBSCOhost (Academic Search Complete, Education Source, ERIC, Global Health, MEDLINE complete, SPORTDiscus), Scopus, and ProQuest electronic databases with full text. RESULTS: Forty-three studies were included in the systematic review, trialling eight different intervention strategies including loose equipment, structured recess, and multicomponent studies. The meta-analysis included 16 studies. Overall, between group mean difference for: (i) time spent in moderate to vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 6) was 0.18 (95% CI - 0.00 to 0.36) with a marginal significant effect of Z = 1.93 (p = 0.05), (ii) time spent in MVPA for non-RCTs (n = 7) was 0.52 (95% CI - 0.01 to 1.03) with an overall effect of Z = 1.99 (p = 0.05), (iii) time spent in sedentary behaviour for RCTs (n = 3) was - 0.48 (95% CI - 1.38 to 0.43) with an overall effect of Z = 1.03 (p = 0.30). All outcomes had high heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: School recess interventions show promise for increasing MVPA. It was difficult to draw strong conclusions due to low study numbers in the meta-analysis and varied intervention designs. Interventions may need to focus on single component strategies (e.g., loose equipment) to improve understanding of outcome effects for future studies.
Authors: Stefanie J M Verstraete; Greet M Cardon; Dirk L R De Clercq; Ilse M M De Bourdeaudhuij Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2006-01-23 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Salomé Aubert; Joel D Barnes; Chalchisa Abdeta; Patrick Abi Nader; Ade F Adeniyi; Nicolas Aguilar-Farias; Dolores S Andrade Tenesaca; Jasmin Bhawra; Javier Brazo-Sayavera; Greet Cardon; Chen-Kang Chang; Christine Delisle Nyström; Yolanda Demetriou; Catherine E Draper; Lowri Edwards; Arunas Emeljanovas; Aleš Gába; Karla I Galaviz; Silvia A González; Marianella Herrera-Cuenca; Wendy Y Huang; Izzeldin A E Ibrahim; Jaak Jürimäe; Katariina Kämppi; Tarun R Katapally; Piyawat Katewongsa; Peter T Katzmarzyk; Asaduzzaman Khan; Agata Korcz; Yeon Soo Kim; Estelle Lambert; Eun-Young Lee; Marie Löf; Tom Loney; Juan López-Taylor; Yang Liu; Daga Makaza; Taru Manyanga; Bilyana Mileva; Shawnda A Morrison; Jorge Mota; Vida K Nyawornota; Reginald Ocansey; John J Reilly; Blanca Roman-Viñas; Diego Augusto Santos Silva; Pairoj Saonuam; John Scriven; Jan Seghers; Natasha Schranz; Thomas Skovgaard; Melody Smith; Martyn Standage; Gregor Starc; Gareth Stratton; Narayan Subedi; Tim Takken; Tuija Tammelin; Chiaki Tanaka; David Thivel; Dawn Tladi; Richard Tyler; Riaz Uddin; Alun Williams; Stephen H S Wong; Ching-Lin Wu; Paweł Zembura; Mark S Tremblay Journal: J Phys Act Health Date: 2018-11-01
Authors: Mark Hamer; Daniel Aggio; Georgina Knock; Courtney Kipps; Aparna Shankar; Lee Smith Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2017-06-07 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Alethea Jerebine; Katie Fitton-Davies; Natalie Lander; Emma L J Eyre; Michael J Duncan; Lisa M Barnett Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2022-06-25 Impact factor: 8.915
Authors: Nicholas Kuzik; Bruno G G da Costa; Yeongho Hwang; Simone J J M Verswijveren; Scott Rollo; Mark S Tremblay; Stacey Bélanger; Valerie Carson; Melanie Davis; Susan Hornby; Wendy Yajun Huang; Barbi Law; Jo Salmon; Jennifer R Tomasone; Lucy-Joy Wachira; Katrien Wijndaele; Travis J Saunders Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2022-04-05 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Alethea Jerebine; Katie Fitton-Davies; Natalie Lander; Emma L J Eyre; Michael J Duncan; Lisa M Barnett Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 8.915