Use of a toolbox of tailored evidence-based interventions to improve children's physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness in primary schools: results of the ACTIPROS cluster-randomized feasibility trial.
Accelerometry
Fitness
Health promoting schools
Physical activity
Primary schools
School-based health promotion
Toolbox
Journal
The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity
ISSN: 1479-5868
Titre abrégé: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101217089
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 08 2023
18 08 2023
Historique:
received:
04
04
2023
accepted:
23
07
2023
medline:
21
8
2023
pubmed:
19
8
2023
entrez:
18
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
School-based physical activity (PA) promotion is usually conducted by providing one specific intervention. In contrast, the ACTIvity PROmotion via Schools (ACTIPROS) toolbox provides a set of twelve evidence-based PA interventions serving different domains of the Health Promoting Schools framework that primary schools can select according to their requirements. In this study, we tested the feasibility of the toolbox approach in primary schools. A two-arm cluster-randomized feasibility trial at primary schools (n = 5 intervention schools [IS], n = 5 control schools) located in the Federal State of Bremen, Germany, was conducted. Children's habitual PA (GENEActiv, Activinsights Ltd.) and motor skills (Deutscher Motorik Test; DMT) were measured at the beginning (t0: Sept and Oct 2021) and at the end of the school year (t1: June and July 2022). Between Oct 2021 and July 2022, the ACTIPROS toolbox was implemented at IS. Teachers documented intervention choices and implementation within a short questionnaire (SIQ) at t1. IS successfully implemented at least one intervention of the toolbox. In total, seven out of twelve possible interventions were selected. Two schools decided to replace an intervention with another during the trial. Results of the SIQ indicated that IS tended to choose similar interventions while implementation frequency was highly different. N = 429 students from two classes per school were recruited. The mean consent rate was 75.1% (n = 322). At t0 and t1, n = 304 (94.4%) and n = 256 (79.3%) of consented children took part in the DMT, respectively. The accelerometry sample included one class per participating school. At t0 and t1, n = 166 and n = 151 devices were handed out to students and n = 133 (80.1%) and n = 106 (70.2%) valid records could be retrieved, respectively. Linear mixed models showed an intervention effect of 15.5 min (95% CI: 4.5; 26.6) in children's daily MVPA at IS between t0 and t1 compared to controls. All IS were able to implement at least one intervention from the toolbox, and unsuitable interventions were successfully replaced in a timely manner, highlighting the feasibility of implementing the ACTIPROS toolbox. Good consent rates for accelerometer and motor skills data were achieved. Results indicate a substantial increase in MVPA associated with the ACTIPROS toolbox and need to be tested in a larger sample. German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00025840.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
School-based physical activity (PA) promotion is usually conducted by providing one specific intervention. In contrast, the ACTIvity PROmotion via Schools (ACTIPROS) toolbox provides a set of twelve evidence-based PA interventions serving different domains of the Health Promoting Schools framework that primary schools can select according to their requirements. In this study, we tested the feasibility of the toolbox approach in primary schools.
METHODS
A two-arm cluster-randomized feasibility trial at primary schools (n = 5 intervention schools [IS], n = 5 control schools) located in the Federal State of Bremen, Germany, was conducted. Children's habitual PA (GENEActiv, Activinsights Ltd.) and motor skills (Deutscher Motorik Test; DMT) were measured at the beginning (t0: Sept and Oct 2021) and at the end of the school year (t1: June and July 2022). Between Oct 2021 and July 2022, the ACTIPROS toolbox was implemented at IS. Teachers documented intervention choices and implementation within a short questionnaire (SIQ) at t1.
RESULTS
IS successfully implemented at least one intervention of the toolbox. In total, seven out of twelve possible interventions were selected. Two schools decided to replace an intervention with another during the trial. Results of the SIQ indicated that IS tended to choose similar interventions while implementation frequency was highly different. N = 429 students from two classes per school were recruited. The mean consent rate was 75.1% (n = 322). At t0 and t1, n = 304 (94.4%) and n = 256 (79.3%) of consented children took part in the DMT, respectively. The accelerometry sample included one class per participating school. At t0 and t1, n = 166 and n = 151 devices were handed out to students and n = 133 (80.1%) and n = 106 (70.2%) valid records could be retrieved, respectively. Linear mixed models showed an intervention effect of 15.5 min (95% CI: 4.5; 26.6) in children's daily MVPA at IS between t0 and t1 compared to controls.
CONCLUSIONS
All IS were able to implement at least one intervention from the toolbox, and unsuitable interventions were successfully replaced in a timely manner, highlighting the feasibility of implementing the ACTIPROS toolbox. Good consent rates for accelerometer and motor skills data were achieved. Results indicate a substantial increase in MVPA associated with the ACTIPROS toolbox and need to be tested in a larger sample.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00025840.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37596651
doi: 10.1186/s12966-023-01497-z
pii: 10.1186/s12966-023-01497-z
pmc: PMC10439638
doi:
Banques de données
DRKS
['DRKS00025840']
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
99Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
WHO. Global health risks: mortality and burden of disease attributable to selected major risks Geneva2009 [Available from: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/GlobalHealthRisks_report_full.pdf .
Lee IM, Shiroma EJ, Lobelo F, Puska P, Blair SN, Katzmarzyk PT, et al. Effect of physical inactivity on major non-communicable diseases worldwide: an analysis of burden of disease and life expectancy. Lancet. 2012;380(9838):219–29.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61031-9
pubmed: 22818936
pmcid: 3645500
Janssen I, Leblanc AG. Systematic review of the health benefits of physical activity and fitness in school-aged children and youth. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010;7:40.
doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-7-40
pmcid: 2885312
Telama R. Tracking of physical activity from childhood to adulthood: a review. Obes Facts. 2009;2(3):187–95.
doi: 10.1159/000222244
pmcid: 6516203
Messing S, Rutten A, Abu-Omar K, Ungerer-Rohrich U, Goodwin L, Burlacu I, et al. How can physical activity be promoted among children and adolescents? A systematic review of reviews across settings. Front Public Health. 2019;7:55.
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00055
pubmed: 30941342
pmcid: 6433781
Watson A, Timperio A, Brown H, Best K, Hesketh KD. Effect of classroom-based physical activity interventions on academic and physical activity outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14(1):114.
doi: 10.1186/s12966-017-0569-9
pubmed: 28841890
pmcid: 5574081
Slingerland M, Borghouts L. Direct and indirect influence of physical education-based interventions on physical activity: a review. J Phys Act Health. 2011;8(6):866–78.
doi: 10.1123/jpah.8.6.866
pubmed: 21832303
Dobbins M, Husson H, DeCorby K, LaRocca RL. School-based physical activity programs for promoting physical activity and fitness in children and adolescents aged 6 to 18. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2013(2):Cd007651.
pubmed: 23450577
pmcid: 7197501
Brandes B, Busse H, Sell L, Christianson L, Brandes M. A scoping review on characteristics of school-based interventions to promote physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness among 6- to 10-year-old children. Prev Med. 2022;155:106920.
doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106920
pubmed: 34921831
Russ LB, Webster CA, Beets MW, Phillips DS. Systematic review and Meta-analysis of multi-component interventions through schools to increase physical activity. J Phys Act Health. 2015;12(10):1436–46.
doi: 10.1123/jpah.2014-0244
pubmed: 25599111
Brandes M, Brandes B, Sell L, Sacheck JM, Chinapaw M, Lubans DR, et al. How to select interventions for promoting physical activity in schools? Combining preferences of stakeholders and scientists. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2023;20(1):48.
doi: 10.1186/s12966-023-01452-y
pubmed: 37098620
pmcid: 10127415
National Institutes of Health NCI. About Implementation Science 2022 [Available from: https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/is/about .
Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, Craig P, Baird J, Blazeby JM, et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2021;374:n2061.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.n2061
pubmed: 34593508
pmcid: 8482308
Eldridge SM, Chan CL, Campbell MJ, Bond CM, Hopewell S, Thabane L, et al. CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. BMJ. 2016;355:i5239.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.i5239
pubmed: 27777223
pmcid: 5076380
Brandes B, Busse H, Sell L, Christianson L, Brandes M. A scoping review on characteristics of school-based interventions to promote physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness among 6- to 10-year-old children. Prev Med. 2021;155:106920.
doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106920
pubmed: 34921831
Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ: Br Med J. 2014;348:g1687.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.g1687
Bös K, Schlenker L, Büsch D, Lämmle L, Müller H, Oberger J et al. Der Deutsche Motorik-Test (DMT 6–18). Hamburg: Czwalina; 2009.
Phillips LR, Parfitt G, Rowlands AV. Calibration of the GENEA accelerometer for assessment of physical activity intensity in children. J Sci Med Sport. 2013;16(2):124–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2012.05.013
pubmed: 22770768
Sabia S, van Hees VT, Shipley MJ, Trenell MI, Hagger-Johnson G, Elbaz A, et al. Association between Questionnaire- and accelerometer-assessed physical activity: the role of sociodemographic factors. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;179(6):781–90.
doi: 10.1093/aje/kwt330
pubmed: 24500862
pmcid: 3939851
da Silva IC, van Hees VT, Ramires VV, Knuth AG, Bielemann RM, Ekelund U, et al. Physical activity levels in three brazilian birth cohorts as assessed with raw triaxial wrist accelerometry. Int J Epidemiol. 2014;43(6):1959–68.
doi: 10.1093/ije/dyu203
pubmed: 25361583
pmcid: 4276065
Antczak D, Lonsdale C, Del Pozo Cruz B, Parker P, Sanders T. Reliability of GENEActiv accelerometers to estimate sleep, physical activity, and sedentary time in children. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021;18(1):73.
doi: 10.1186/s12966-021-01143-6
pubmed: 34090467
pmcid: 8180134
Cole TJ, Lobstein T. Extended international (IOTF) body mass index cut-offs for thinness, overweight and obesity. Pediatr Obes. 2012;7(4):284–94.
doi: 10.1111/j.2047-6310.2012.00064.x
pubmed: 22715120
Lampert T, Muters S, Stolzenberg H, Kroll LE, Ki GGSSG. [Measurement of socioeconomic status in the KiGGS study: first follow-up (KiGGS Wave 1)]. Bundesgesundheitsbl. 2014;57(7):762–70.
doi: 10.1007/s00103-014-1974-8
Schenk L, Ellert U, Neuhauser H. [Children and adolescents in Germany with a migration background. Methodical aspects in the german health interview and examination survey for children and adolescents (KiGGS)]. Bundesgesundheitsbl. 2007;50(5–6):590–9.
doi: 10.1007/s00103-007-0220-z
Kriemler S, Zahner L, Schindler C, Meyer U, Hartmann T, Hebestreit H, et al. Effect of school based physical activity programme (KISS) on fitness and adiposity in primary schoolchildren: cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2010;340:c785.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.c785
pubmed: 20179126
pmcid: 2827713
R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna; 2017.
Rotondi M, Donner A. Sample size estimation in Cluster Randomized Educational trials: an empirical Bayes Approach. J Educational Behav Stat - J EDUC BEHAV STAT. 2009;34:229–37.
doi: 10.3102/1076998609332756
Langford R, Bonell C, Jones H, Pouliou T, Murphy S, Waters E, et al. The World Health Organization’s Health promoting schools framework: a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1):130.
doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-1360-y
pubmed: 25886385
pmcid: 4339015
Waters E, de Silva-Sanigorski A, Burford BJ, Brown T, Campbell KJ, Gao Y et al. Interventions for preventing obesity in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011(12).
Santos F, Sousa H, Gouveia ÉR, Lopes H, Peralta M, Martins J, et al. School-Based family-oriented Health Interventions to promote physical activity in children and adolescents: a systematic review. Am J Health Promotion. 2023;37(2):243–62.
doi: 10.1177/08901171221113836
Jago R, Sebire SJ, Davies B, Wood L, Edwards MJ, Banfield K, et al. Randomised feasibility trial of a teaching assistant led extracurricular physical activity intervention for 9 to 11 year olds: action 3:30. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Activity. 2014;11:114.
doi: 10.1186/s12966-014-0114-z
Sebire SJ, Jago R, Banfield K, Edwards MJ, Campbell R, Kipping R, et al. Results of a feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial of a peer-led school-based intervention to increase the physical activity of adolescent girls (PLAN-A). Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2018;15(1):50.
doi: 10.1186/s12966-018-0682-4
pmcid: 5992776