Are school-based physical activity interventions effective and equitable? A meta-analysis of cluster randomized controlled trials with accelerometer-assessed activity
Open accessAbstract
The prevalence of childhood obesity is increasing at epidemic rates globally, with widening inequalities between advantaged and disadvantaged groups. Despite the promise of schools as a universal context to access and influence all children, the potential of school-based interventions to positively impact children's physical activity behaviour, and obesity risk, remains uncertain. We searched six electronic databases to February 2017 for cluster randomized trials of school-based physical activity interventions. Following data extraction, authors were sent re-analysis requests. For each trial, a mean change score from baseline to follow-up was calculated for daily minutes of accelerometer-assessed moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), for the main effect, by gender, and by socio-economic position (SEP). Twenty-five trials met the inclusion criteria; 17 trials provided relevant data for inclusion in the meta-analyses. The pooled main effect for daily minutes of MVPA was nonexistent and nonsignificant. There was no evidence of differential effectiveness by gender or SEP. This review provides the strongest evidence to date that current school-based efforts do not positively impact young people's physical activity across the full day, with no difference in effect across gender and SEP. Further assessment and maximization of implementation fidelity is required before it can be concluded that these interventions have no contribution to make.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A very recent meta-analysis of school-based PA interventions, which included only studies using whole-day accelerometer measurements, found a pooled effect size of 0.02 and concluded that current school-based interventions do not increase young people's daily PA.
“A very recent meta-analysis of school-based PA interventions, which included only studies using whole-day accelerometer measurements, found a pooled ES of 0.02 and concluded that current school-based interventions do not increase young people's (children's and adolescents’) daily PA.109”
From A mixed-studies systematic review and meta-analysis of school-based interventions to promote physical activity and/or reduce sedentary time in children (2020) · cites this paper as [109]
A systematic review of RCTs with objective, whole-day accelerometer PA measurements published after the search strategy was completed included a final sample of 17 studies.
“Specifically, a systematic review of RCTs with objective, whole-day accelerometer PA measurements published after the search strategy was completed109 included a final sample of 17 studies.”
From A mixed-studies systematic review and meta-analysis of school-based interventions to promote physical activity and/or reduce sedentary time in children (2020) · cites this paper as [109]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 63 · Cited by 452
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [5]World Health Organization. Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health; 2010 http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/44399/1/9789241599979_eng.pdf. 26180873
- [27]Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. Chichester: Wiley and Sons; 2011.
- Authors
- Love, R., Adams, J., & van Sluijs, E. M. F.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), MRC Epidemiology Unit University of Cambridge Cambridge UK
- Corresponding author
- Love, Rebecca
- Venue
- Obesity Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-01-09
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 859-870
- ISSN
- 1467-7881 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-789X
- PMC
- PMC6563481
- OpenAlex
- W2910032966
- Cited by
- 452
- References
- 63
- Citations by year
- 2026: 32 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 68 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 69 · 2021: 83 · 2020: 77 · 2019: 23
- FWCI
- 7.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Obesity Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Apollo (cc-by)
- Funders
- Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12015/7)
- Wellcome Trust
- Centre for Diet and Activity Research (087636/Z/08/Z, ES/G007462/1, MR/K023187/1)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › School Health and Nursing Education
- Keywords
- school-based physical activity intervention, childhood obesity, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, accelerometer-measured activity, intervention effectiveness, health equity, socioeconomic position, gender differences, implementation fidelity
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Child, Female, Humans, Male, Physical Education and Training, Schools, Socioeconomic Factors, Exercise, Cluster Analysis, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Health Status Disparities, Accelerometry, Pediatric Obesity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review