| Literature DB >> 34976697 |
Runar Barstad Solberg1, Jostein Steene-Johannessen1, Morten Wang Fagerland1, Sigmund A Anderssen1, Sveinung Berntsen2, Geir K Resaland3, Esther M F van Sluijs4, Ulf Ekelund1, Elin Kolle1.
Abstract
Little information exists on the mechanism of how physical activity interventions effects academic performance. We examined whether the effects of a school-based physical activity intervention on academic performance were mediated by aerobic fitness. The School in Motion study was a nine-month cluster randomized controlled trial between September 2017 and June 2018. Students from 30 Norwegian lower secondary schools (N = 2,084, mean age [SD] = 14 [0.3] years) were randomly assigned into three groups: the Physically Active Learning (PAL) intervention (n = 10), the Don't Worry-Be Happy (DWBH) intervention (n = 10), or control (n = 10). Aerobic fitness was assessed by the Andersen test and academic performance by national tests in reading and numeracy. Mediation was assessed according to the causal steps approach using linear mixed models. In the PAL intervention, aerobic fitness partially mediated the intervention effect on numeracy by 28% from a total effect of 1.73 points (95% CI: 1.13 to 2.33) to a natural direct effect of 1.24 points (95% CI: 0.58 to 1.91), and fully mediated the intervention effect on reading, with the total effect of 0.89 points (95% CI: 0.15 to 1.62) reduced to the natural direct effect of 0.40 points (95% CI: -0.48 to 1.28). Aerobic fitness did not mediate the effects on academic performance in the DWBH intervention. As aerobic fitness mediated the intervention effect on academic performance in one intervention, physical activity of an intensity that increases aerobic fitness is one strategy to improve academic performance among adolescents.Entities:
Keywords: Academic performance; Adolescents; Aerobic fitness; Cluster RCT; DWBH, Don’t worry – be Happy; ICC, intra class correlation; PAL, Physically Active Learning; Physical activity; SD, standard deviation; ScIM, School in Motion
Year: 2021 PMID: 34976697 PMCID: PMC8684017 DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101648
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Prev Med Rep ISSN: 2211-3355
Fig. 1The hypothesized mediation model. c path: Intervention effect (mean difference in change between intervention and control) on outcome (the total effect). α path: Intervention effect (mean difference in change between intervention and control) on mediator of interest. β path: Association between mediator and outcome adjusted for group allocation c’ path: The natural direct intervention effect on outcome conditional on holding the mediator variable constant.
Fig. 2Flow diagram of the included students (n = schools [students]).
Participants demographic and anthropometric characteristics by group allocation at baseline and follow-up.
| PAL Intervention (n = 655 – 491) | DWBH Intervention (n = 586 – 332) | Control (n = 795 – 483) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Follow-up | Baseline | Follow-up | Baseline | Follow-up | ||||||
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | ||||||
| Girls/Boys (%) | 50/50 | 50/50 | 50/50 | 50/50 | 50/50 | 50/50 | |||||
| Age (year) | 13.9 (0.3) | 14.9 (0.3) | 14.0 (0.3) | 14.9 (0.3) | 14.0 (0.3) | 14.9 (0.3) | |||||
| Height (cm) | 164.6 (8.1) | 168 (8.3) | 166.4 (7.7) | 170 (7.9) | 165.8 (7.7) | 169.7 (7.8) | |||||
| Weight (kg) | 54.2 (10.8) | 58.2 (10.9) | 56.2 (11.0) | 59.9 (10.7) | 54.4 (10.5) | 58.2 (11.2) | |||||
| BMI | 19.9 (3.1) | 20.5 (3.2) | 20.2 (3.2) | 20.8 (3.0) | 19.7 (3.1) | 20.1 (3.1) | |||||
| Aerobic fitness (m) | 894 (101) | 925 (108) | 909 (111) | 909 (90) | 928 (102) | 940 (92) | |||||
| Numeracy (points) | 54.9 (10) | 55.2 (9) | 54.5 (9) | 55.0 (9) | 55.2 (9) | 53.8 (9) | |||||
| Reading (points) | 55.2 (9) | 54.7 (9) | 54.2 (9) | 54.0 (8) | 54.8 (10) | 53.5 (9) | |||||
PAL = Physical active learning; DWBH = Don’t worry – Be happy”, M = meter. BMI = body mass index.
Fig. 3Models of the mediation effect of aerobic fitness on the intervention effect (mean difference in change (c and c’ path)) onA) numeracy and B) reading performance among students in the Physically Active Learning (PAL) intervention arm when compared with controls. All coefficients are unstandardized. Each model contained fixed effects for intervention, time (baseline – follow-up) and intervention × time interaction, in addition to random effects for school, class and subject ID. All models are adjusted for gender. CI: Confidence interval. Intra Class Correlation Coefficient for school (ICC)s: Model A: ICC: 0.04, Model B: ICC: 0.09.
Fig. 4Models of the mediation effect of aerobic fitness on the intervention effect (mean difference in change (c and c’ path)) on A) numeracy and B) reading performance among students in the Don’t worry – be happy (DWBH) intervention arm when compared with controls. All coefficients are unstandardized. Each model contained fixed effects for intervention, time (baseline – follow-up) and intervention × time interaction, in addition to random effects for school, class and subject ID. All models are adjusted for gender. CI: Confidence interval. Intra Class Correlation Coefficient for school (ICC)s: Model A: ICC: 0.08, Model B: ICC: 0.10.