Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27267965›Full record

Trial reportThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2016

Outcomes of a four-year specialist-taught physical education program on physical activity: a cluster randomized controlled trial, the LOOK study.

Rohan M Telford, Lisa S Olive, Thomas Cochrane, Rachel Davey, Richard D Telford

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Impact on Physical Fitness of the Chinese CHAMPS: A Clustered Randomized Controlled Trial.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The Importance of Self-Monitoring for Behavior Change in Youth: Findings from the SWITCHInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

5 authors.

Rohan M TelfordCentre for Research and Action in Public Health, Health Research Institute, University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT, 2617, Australia. rohan.telford@canberra.edu.au.
Lisa S OliveDepartment of Psychology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 0200, Australia.
Thomas CochraneCentre for Research and Action in Public Health, Health Research Institute, University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT, 2617, Australia.
Rachel DaveyCentre for Research and Action in Public Health, Health Research Institute, University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT, 2617, Australia.
Richard D TelfordMedical School, College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 0200, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe objective of this study was to investigate the effect of a 4-year specialist-taught Physical Education (PE) program on physical activity (PA) among primary school children.

methodsA 4-year cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted in children (initially aged 8 years) from 29 primary schools (13 Intervention, 16 Control). Intervention students (N = 457) received 2 × 45 min PE lessons per week from specialist-trained PE teachers (68 lessons per year, 272 lessons over 4 years). Control group students (N = 396) received usual practice PE from generalist classroom teachers. PA during PE lessons was examined using the System for Observing Fitness Instruction Time (SOFIT). Pedometers (steps/day) were worn for 7 days each year, and accelerometers were worn concurrently in the final two years to assess moderate to vigorous (MVPA) and sedentary activity. Linear and generalized mixed models were used to determine differences in Intervention and Control student PA and the proportion of students meeting PA guidelines.

resultsThe intervention increased SOFIT-observed student MVPA during PE lessons by 6.5 mins (16.7 v 10.2, p < 0.001). Within intervention schools, participants increased their whole-day step counts (boys = 449 [CI,140 to 756]; girls = 424 [CI,222 to 626]) and minutes of MVPA (boys = 8.0 [CI,6.8 to 9.2]; girls = 3.5 [CI,1.7 to 5.4]) on PE days. However, compared to the Control group the Intervention did not: increase habitual steps/day or MVPA when averaged over 7 days; elicit greater improvements in these measures over time; or increase the odds of meeting step/day or MVPA recommendations. At age 11 years Intervention group boys were 20 mins less sedentary per day (380 [CI,369 to 391] vs 360 [CI,350 to 369]) and this effect was sustained at age 12 years.

conclusionsWell-designed specialist-taught PE can improve student PA during PE lessons. However for PE to be a significant contributor to improving habitual PA in pre-adolescent children, daily classes are likely to be required, and even this would need to be supplemented with a wider multicomponent strategy. Our finding of a reduction in sedentary time among Intervention boys warrants further investigation into the potential role PE could play in influencing sedentary behaviour.

Indexed as

Child BehaviorExercisePhysical Education and TrainingSchoolsSedentary BehaviorActigraphyChildCurriculumFemaleHealth BehaviorHumansMaleMotor ActivityPhysical ExertionPhysical FitnessStudentsInterventionPhysical activityPhysical educationRCTSchool

Identifiers

PMID27267965
PMCPMC4897937

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.