Cited by 83Obesity, Physical Activity, DietSchool Health and Nursing EducationPhysical Activity and Health

Randomised controlled trial adapting US school obesity prevention to England

Kipping, R R, Payne, C, Lawlor, D A·2008·Archives of Disease in Childhood

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a school obesity prevention project developed in the United States can be adapted for use in England. METHODS: A pilot cluster randomised controlled trial and interviews with teachers were carried out in 19 primary schools in South West England. Participants included 679 children in year 5 (age 9-10). Baseline and follow-up assessments were completed for 323 children (screen viewing) and 472 children (body mass index). Sixteen lessons on healthy eating, physical activity and reducing TV viewing were taught over 5 months by teachers. Main outcome measures were hours of screen activities, body mass index, mode of transport to school and teachers' views of the intervention. RESULTS: Children from intervention schools spent less time on screen-viewing activities after the intervention but these differences were imprecisely estimated: mean difference in minutes spent on screen viewing at the end of the intervention (intervention schools minus control schools) adjusted for baseline levels and clustering within schools was -11.6 (95% CI -42.7 to 19.4) for a week day and was -15.4 (95% CI -57.5 to 26.8) for a Saturday. There was no difference in mean body mass index or the odds of obesity. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to transfer this US school-based intervention to UK schools, and it may be effective in reducing the time children spend on screen-based activities. The study has provided information for a full-scale trial, which would require 50 schools ( approximately 1250 pupils) to detect effects on screen viewing and body mass index over 2 years of follow-up.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/adc.2007.116970

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kipping, R. R., Payne, C., & Lawlor, D. A.
Affiliations
University of Bristol (GB)
Corresponding author
Kipping, R R
Venue
Archives of Disease in Childhood
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2008-06-01
Volume
93
Issue
6
Pages
469-473
ISSN
  • 0003-9888 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2044
OpenAlex
W2135053803
Cited by
83
References
21
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 7
FWCI
4.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Disease in Childhood (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research
Topics
  • 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
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
Keywords
school-based obesity prevention, screen viewing, television viewing, body mass index, childhood obesity, healthy eating education, physical activity, intervention adaptation, elementary school students, teacher perceptions
MeSH terms
Child, Child Nutritional Physiological Phenomena, England, Female, Health Promotion, Humans, Male, Obesity, Pilot Projects, Schools, United States, Program Evaluation, Health Behavior, Body Mass Index, Risk Reduction Behavior

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