Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33068273›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2020

Interventions to Change School Recess Activity Levels in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Anne-Maree Parrish, Kar Hau Chong, Abbe L Moriarty, Marijka Batterham, Nicola D Ridgers

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
7.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anne-Maree ParrishEarly Start, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia. aparrish@uow.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6752-9625
Kar Hau ChongEarly Start, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3893-4306
Abbe L MoriartyInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6040-4232
Marijka BatterhamSchool of Mathematics and Applied Statistics, Faculty of Engineering and Information Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9520-6508
Nicola D RidgersInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5713-3515
University of Wollongong · AUDeakin University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe school environment is globally recognised as a key setting to promote child and adolescent physical activity. School recess contributes up to 40% of the school day and recommended physical activity levels, providing a critical physical activity promotion opportunity for children and adolescents.

objectiveTo examine the effectiveness of school recess interventions on children's and adolescents' physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour (SED) during this time.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: EBSCOhost (Academic Search Complete, Education Source, ERIC, Global Health, MEDLINE complete, SPORTDiscus), Scopus, and ProQuest electronic databases with full text.

resultsForty-three studies were included in the systematic review, trialling eight different intervention strategies including loose equipment, structured recess, and multicomponent studies. The meta-analysis included 16 studies. Overall, between group mean difference for: (i) time spent in moderate to vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 6) was 0.18 (95% CI - 0.00 to 0.36) with a marginal significant effect of Z = 1.93 (p = 0.05), (ii) time spent in MVPA for non-RCTs (n = 7) was 0.52 (95% CI - 0.01 to 1.03) with an overall effect of Z = 1.99 (p = 0.05), (iii) time spent in sedentary behaviour for RCTs (n = 3) was - 0.48 (95% CI - 1.38 to 0.43) with an overall effect of Z = 1.03 (p = 0.30). All outcomes had high heterogeneity.

conclusionSchool recess interventions show promise for increasing MVPA. It was difficult to draw strong conclusions due to low study numbers in the meta-analysis and varied intervention designs. Interventions may need to focus on single component strategies (e.g., loose equipment) to improve understanding of outcome effects for future studies.

Indexed as

ExerciseHealth PromotionSchoolsAdolescentChildHumansPhysical Education and TrainingRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSedentary Behavior

Identifiers

PMID33068273
OpenAlexW3092788008

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.