ArticleBMJ open sport & exercise medicine2021
Exploring activity levels in physical education lessons in the UK: a cross-sectional examination of activity types and fitness levels.
Article in BMJ open sport & exercise medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03286725 (Physical Exercise for Education), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
Physical Exercise for Education ('Fit to Study')
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Associations between class-level factors and student physical activity during physical education lessons in China.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2025Article
- The Impact of Different Pedagogical Models on Moderate-to-Vigorous Physical Activity in Physical Education Classes.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Analysis of Adolescent Physical Activity Levels and Their Relationship with Body Image and Nutritional Habits.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Declining fitness and physical education lessons in UK adolescents.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo establish pupil fitness levels, and the relationship to global norms and physical education (PE) enjoyment. To measure and describe physical activity (PA) levels during secondary school PE lessons, in the context of recommended levels, and how levels vary with activity and lesson type.
methodsA cross-sectional design; 10 697 pupils aged 12.5 (SD 0.30) years; pupils who completed a multistage fitness test and wore accelerometers to measure PA during PE lessons. Multilevel models estimated fitness and PE activity levels, accounting for school and class-level clustering.
resultsCardiorespiratory fitness was higher in boys than girls (ß=-0.48; 95% CI -0.56 to -0.39, p<0.001), within absolute terms 51% of boys and 54% of girls above the 50th percentile of global norms. On average, pupils spent 23.8% of PE lessons in moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA), and 7.1% in vigorous PA (VPA). Fitness-focused lessons recorded most VPA in co-educational (ß=1.09; 95% CI 0.43 to 1.74) and boys-only lessons (ß=0.32; 95% CI -0.21 to 0.85). In girls-only lessons, track athletics recorded most VPA (ß=0.13; 95% CI -0.50 to 0.75) and net/wall/racket games (ß=0.97; 95% CI 0.12 to 1.82) the most MVPA. For all lesson types, field athletics was least active (ß=-0.85; 95% CI -1.33 to -0.36). There was a relationship of enjoyment of PE to fitness (ß=1.03; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.23), and this relationship did not vary with sex (ß=-0.14 to 0.23; 95% CI -0.16 to 0.60).
conclusionsPE lessons were inactive compared with current guidelines. We propose that if we are to continue to develop a range of sporting skills in schools at the same time as increasing levels of fitness and PA, there is a need to introduce additional sessions of PE activity focused on increasing physical activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03286725.
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.