ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2019
Examination of the Responsiveness of the Great Recess Framework-Observational Tool.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to test the responsiveness of the great recess framework-observational tool (GRF-OT) to detect changes in recess quality. GRF-OT data were collected at two time points (fall 2017 and spring 2018) in four geographically distinct regions of the United States. Following recommendations by Massey et al. (2018), a three-day average of recess observations was used for each data point. Data analysis was conducted on nine schools contracted to receive services from Playworks, a national non-profit organization specializing in recess implementation, for the first time; eight schools with returning Playworks services (i.e., multiple years of service) and five schools with no intervention services. Analysis of the change in GRF-OT scores from fall to spring revealed a large effect for first-year intervention schools (g = 1.19; 95% CI 0.13, 2.25) and multi-year intervention schools (g = 0.788; 95% CI -0.204, 1.78). GRF-OT scores decreased for schools not receiving an intervention (g = -0.562; 95% CI, -2.20, 1.07). New intervention schools (odds ratio= 21.59; 95% CI 4.27, 109.15) and multi-year intervention schools (odds ratio= 7.34; 95% CI 1.50, 35.97) were more likely to meet the threshold for meaningful positive change than non-intervention schools. The results of the current study suggest that GRF-OT is a responsive tool that researchers, practitioners, and policy makers can use to measure and assess changes in the quality of the recess environment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.