Cited by 221Physical Activity and HealthObesity, Physical Activity, DietSchool Health and Nursing Education

Effect of intervention aimed at increasing physical activity, reducing sedentary behaviour, and increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in children: active for life year 5 (AFLY5) school-based cluster randomised controlled trial

Open access
Kipping, R. R., Howe, L. D., Jago, R., Campbell, R., Wells, S., Chittleborough, C. R., Mytton, J., Noble, S. M. +2 more·2014·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of a school based intervention to increase physical activity, reduce sedentary behaviour, and increase fruit and vegetable consumption in children. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 60 primary schools in the south west of England. PARTICIPANTS: Primary school children who were in school year 4 (age 8-9 years) at recruitment and baseline assessment, in year 5 during the intervention, and at the end of year 5 (age 9-10) at follow-up assessment. INTERVENTION: The Active for Life Year 5 (AFLY5) intervention consisted of teacher training, provision of lesson and child-parent interactive homework plans, all materials required for lessons and homework, and written materials for school newsletters and parents. The intervention was delivered when children were in school year 5 (age 9-10 years). Schools allocated to control received standard teaching. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The pre-specified primary outcomes were accelerometer assessed minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per day, accelerometer assessed minutes of sedentary behaviour per day, and reported daily consumption of servings of fruit and vegetables. RESULTS: 60 schools with more than 2221 children were recruited; valid data were available for fruit and vegetable consumption for 2121 children, for accelerometer assessed physical activity and sedentary behaviour for 1252 children, and for secondary outcomes for between 1825 and 2212 children for the main analyses. None of the three primary outcomes differed between children in schools allocated to the AFLY5 intervention and those allocated to the control group. The difference in means comparing the intervention group with the control group was -1.35 (95% confidence interval -5.29 to 2.59) minutes per day for moderate to vigorous physical activity, -0.11 (-9.71 to 9.49) minutes per day for sedentary behaviour, and 0.08 (-0.12 to 0.28) servings per day for fruit and vegetable consumption. The intervention was effective for three out of nine of the secondary outcomes after multiple testing was taken into account: self reported time spent in screen viewing at the weekend (-21 (-37 to -4) minutes per day), self reported servings of snacks per day (-0.22 (-0.38 to -0.05)), and servings of high energy drinks per day (-0.26 (-0.43 to -0.10)) were all reduced. Results from a series of sensitivity analyses testing different assumptions about missing data and from per protocol analyses produced similar results. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that the AFLY5 school based intervention is not effective at increasing levels of physical activity, decreasing sedentary behaviour, and increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in primary school children. Change in these activities may require more intensive behavioural interventions with children or upstream interventions at the family and societal level, as well as at the school environment level. These findings have relevance for researchers, policy makers, public health practitioners, and doctors who are involved in health promotion, policy making, and commissioning services. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN50133740.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.g3256

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [30]Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall, 1986.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kipping, R. R., Howe, L. D., Jago, R., Campbell, R., Wells, S., Chittleborough, C. R., Mytton, J., Noble, S. M., Peters, T. J., & Lawlor, D. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • The University of Adelaide (AU)
  • Bristol City Council (GB)
Corresponding author
Lawlor, D. A.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2014-05-27
Volume
348
Issue
may27 4
Pages
g3256-g3256
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1997976024
Cited by
221
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
12.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UWE Research Repository (UWE Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (MC_UU_12013/5, WT087640MA)
  • United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration
  • Cancer Research UK
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0611-10196, NF-SI-0512-10026, 09/3005/04)
  • British Heart Foundation
  • Institut pour la Recherche en Santé Publique
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Medical Research Council (MR/K025643/1, MC_UU_12013_5, MC_UU_12013, WT087640MA, MR/K023233/1, G1002375)
  • Economic and Social Research Council (RES-590-28-0005)
  • Public Health Research Programme (09/3005/04)
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
physical activity promotion, sedentary behavior, fruit and vegetable intake, school-based intervention, elementary school students, teacher professional development, screen viewing, snacking, parent-child communication, intervention effectiveness, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, parental involvement, child health promotion, school newsletter
MeSH terms
Child, England, Feeding Behavior, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Fruit, Health Promotion, Humans, Male, Motor Activity, Obesity, School Health Services, Schools, Vegetables, Exercise, Cluster Analysis, Sedentary 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