Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22989231›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2012

The effect of the UP4FUN pilot intervention on objectively measured sedentary time and physical activity in 10-12 year old children in Belgium: the ENERGY-project.

Maïte Verloigne, Elling Bere, Wendy Van Lippevelde, Lea Maes, Nanna Lien, Froydis N Vik, Johannes Brug, Greet Cardon, Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Identifying effective intervention strategies to reduce children's screen time: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2021
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Understanding differences between summer vs. school obesogenic behaviors of children: the structured days hypothesis.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2017
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Maïte VerloigneDepartment of Movement and Sport Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. maite.verloigne@ugent.be
Elling Bere
Wendy Van Lippevelde
Lea Maes
Nanna Lien
Froydis N Vik
Johannes Brug
Greet Cardon
Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledBAKCKGROUND: The first aim was to examine the effect of the UP4FUN pilot intervention on children's total sedentary time. The second aim was to investigate if the intervention had an effect on children's physical activity (PA) level. Finally, we aimed to investigate demographic differences (i.e. age, gender, ethnicity, living status and having siblings) between children in the intervention group who improved in sedentary time and PA at post-test and children in the intervention group who worsened in sedentary time and PA at post-test.

methodsThe six weeks UP4FUN intervention was tested in a randomized controlled trial with pre-test post-test design with five intervention and five control schools in Belgium and included children of the 5th and 6th grade. The children wore accelerometers for seven days at pre- and post-test. Analyses included children with valid accelerometer data for at least two weekdays with minimum 10h-wearing time and one weekend day with 8h-wearing time.

resultFinal analyses included 372 children (60% girls, mean age = 10.9 ± 0.7 years). There were no significant differences in the change in sedentary time or light PA between intervention and control schools for the total sample or for the subgroup analyses by gender. However, children (specifically girls) in the intervention group had a higher decrease in moderate-to-vigorous PA than children in the control group. In the intervention group, children who lived with both parents and children with one or more siblings were less likely to reduce sedentary time after exposure to the intervention. Older children, girls and children who lived with both parents were less likely to increase light PA after the intervention.

conclusionThe UP4FUN intervention did not result in an effect on children's sedentary time. Based on the high amounts of accelerometer-derived sedentary time in this age group, more efforts are needed to develop strategies to reduce children's sedentary time.

Indexed as

ExerciseSedentary BehaviorAccelerometryBelgiumChildEnergy MetabolismFemaleHumansMalePilot ProjectsResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID22989231
PMCPMC3504538

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.