| Literature DB >> 35329132 |
Christopher D Pfledderer1, Sunku Kwon2, Ildiko Strehli2, Wonwoo Byun2, Ryan D Burns2.
Abstract
Playgrounds are designed to be a safe, enjoyable, and effective means to promote physical activity in children and adolescents. The purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness of playground interventions for improving accelerometer-assessed ambulatory moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and to identify common aspects of playground interventions that may be beneficial to promote behavior change. An internet database search was performed. The final analyzed sample of studies was obtained from several criteria, including being a playground-based intervention targeting children or adolescents, having a control or comparison group, having an accelerometer-assessed MVPA outcome target variable, and reporting of the mean difference scores' variability. A random-effects model meta-analysis was employed to obtain pooled effect sizes. Ten studies (n = 10) were analyzed from the internet search. The weighted pooled effect (Hedges' g) across all studies was Hedges' g = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.02-0.24, p = 0.023. There was moderate study heterogeneity (I2 = 55.3%) but no evidence for publication bias (p = 0.230). These results suggest that school-based playground interventions have a small effect on increasing accelerometer-assessed MVPA within the pediatric population. The playground should still be an environmental target during school or community-based interventions aimed at providing opportunities to promote MVPA.Entities:
Keywords: adolescents; children; environment; physical activity; schools
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35329132 PMCID: PMC8956044 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19063445
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Flowchart of study extraction and inclusion.
Summary of the extracted studies.
| Study | Country | Age (years) |
| Setting | Design | Duration | Accelerometer Processing | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baquet et al. [ | France | IG: 8.3 ± 1.2 | 283 | 3 Elementary schools | Playground markings; sporting playground zonal design | 12 months | GT1 M ActiGraph | BMI |
| Barton et al. [ | United Kingdom | 8.8 ± 0.5 | 52 | 2 Primary schools | Small equipment; free play | 5 days sports | GT1 M ActiGraph | Self-esteem |
| Blaes et al. [ | France | IG: 8.7 ± 1.5 | 332 | 4 Primary schools | Playground markings; sporting playground zonal design | 4-day school week in April and May | GT1 M ActiGraph | LPA |
| Bundy et al. [ | Australia | 6.0 ± 0.6 | 206 | 12 Primary schools | Recycled materials with no obvious play use; teacher/parent reframing workshop | 13 weeks | GT3 X ActiGraph | Acceptance |
| Cardon et al. [ | Belgium | 5.3 ± 0.4 | 583 | 40 Pre-schools | Play equipment; playground markings | 4–6 weeks | GT1 M ActiGraph | LPA |
| Engelen et al. [ | Australia | 6.0 ± 0.6 | 221 | 12 Primary schools | Recycled materials with no obvious play use; teacher-parent workshop | 13 weeks | GT3 X | LPA |
| Farmer et al. [ | New Zealand | IG: 7.9 ± 1.1 | 840 | 16 Primary schools | Playground action plans | 2 years | GT3 X | BMI |
| Hamer et al. [ | United Kingdom | 8.0 | 231 | 5 Primary schools | Novel playground design based on emerging themes consultation | 1 year | GT3 X | LPA |
| Ridgers et al. [ | United Kingdom | IG: 8.3 ± 1.8 yrs | 298 | 15 Primary schools | Sporting playground zonal design; novel structures; small equipment | 6 weeks | Model 7164 ActiGraph | HR-assessed MVPA |
| Ridgers et al. [ | United Kingdom | IG: 8.3 ± 1.8 | 434 | 26 Elementary Schools | Playground markings; sporting playground zonal design; novel structures | 1 year | Model 7164 ActiGraph | HR-assessed MVPA |
IG stands for intervention group; CG stands for control group; MVPA stands for moderate-to-vigorous physical activity; cpm stands for counts per minute; BMI stands for body mass index; LPA stands for light physical activity; SB stands for sedentary behavior; HR stands for heart rate; VPA stands for vigorous physical activity.
Figure 2A forest plot showing the individual and pooled standardized mean differences. Note: SMD stands for standardized mean difference.
Figure 3A funnel plot showing the association between standardized mean differences and standard error.
Results from sensitivity analysis to examine changes in standardized mean differences by study removal.
| Study Omitted | Adjusted Pooled SMD | Adjusted 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Baquet et al. [ | 0.12 | 0.00–0.23 |
| Barton et al. [ | 0.12 | 0.01–0.25 |
| Blaes et al. [ | 0.12 | 0.00–0.25 |
| Bundy et al. [ | 0.12 | 0.00–0.24 |
| Cardon et al. [ | 0.14 | 0.02–0.27 |
| Engelen et al. [ | 0.11 | 0.00–0.22 |
| Farmer et al. [ | 0.18 | 0.10–0.26 |
| Hamer et al. [ | 0.14 | 0.03–0.25 |
| Ridgers et al. [ | 0.12 | 0.00–0.25 |
| Ridgers et al. [ | 0.13 | 0.01–0.24 |
SMD stands for standardized mean difference; 95% CI stands for 95% confidence interval.