Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36914195›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

Do socioeconomic inequities arise during school-based physical activity interventions? An exploratory case study of the GoActive trial.

Olivia Alliott, Hannah Fairbrother, Kirsten Corder, Paul Wilkinson, Esther van Sluijs

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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.

Olivia AlliottMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1835-6852
Hannah FairbrotherHealth Sciences School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Kirsten CorderMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Paul WilkinsonDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Esther van SluijsMRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK esther.vansluijs@mrc-epid.cam.ac.uk.
University of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Sheffield · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00006/5
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate socioeconomic inequities in the intervention and evaluation process of the GoActive school-based physical activity intervention and demonstrate a novel approach to evaluating intervention-related inequalities.

designExploratory post-hoc secondary data analysis of trial data.

settingThe GoActive trial was run in secondary schools across Cambridgeshire and Essex (UK), between September 2016 and July 2018.

participants13-14 years old adolescents (n=2838, 16 schools).

methodsSocioeconomic inequities across six stages in the intervention and evaluation process were evaluated: (1) provision of and access to resources; (2) intervention uptake; (3) intervention effectiveness (accelerometer-assessed moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA)); (4) long-term compliance; (5) response in evaluation; and (6) impact on health. Data from self-report and objective measures were analysed by individual-level and school-level socioeconomic position (SEP) using a combination of classical hypothesis tests and multilevel regression modelling.

resultsStage: (1) There was no difference in the provision of physical activity resources by school-level SEP (eg, quality of facilities (0-3), low=2.6 (0.5); high=2.5 (0.4). (2) Students of low-SEP engaged significantly less with the intervention (eg, website access: low=37.2%; middle=45.4%; high=47.0%; p=0.001). (3) There was a positive intervention effect on MVPA in adolescents of low-SEP (3.13 min/day, 95% CI -1.27 to 7.54, but not middle/high (-1.49; 95% CI -6.54 to 3.57). (4) At 10 months post-intervention, this difference increased (low SEP: 4.90; 95% CI 0.09 to 9.70; middle/high SEP: -2.76; 95% CI -6.78 to 1.26). (5) There was greater non-compliance to evaluation measures among adolescents of low-SEP (eg, % accelerometer compliance (low vs high): baseline: 88.4 vs 92.5; post-intervention: 61.6 vs 69.2; follow-up: 54.5 vs 70.2. (6) The intervention effect on body mass index (BMI) z-score was more favourable in adolescents of low-SEP (low SEP: -0.10; 95% CI -0.19 to 0.00; middle/high: 0.03; 95% CI -0.05 to 0.12).

conclusionsThese analyses suggest the GoActive intervention had a more favourable positive effect on MVPA and BMI in adolescents of low-SEP, despite lower intervention engagement. However, differential response to evaluation measures may have biassed these conclusions. We demonstrate a novel way of evaluating inequities within young people's physical activity intervention evaluations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN31583496.

Indexed as

ExerciseHealth PromotionAdolescentBody Mass IndexHumansSchoolsSocioeconomic FactorsCommunity child healthEPIDEMIOLOGYPUBLIC HEALTH

Identifiers

PMID36914195
PMCPMC10016273
OpenAlexW4324129567

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read18
identifiers read1
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.