ArticleBMC public health2025
Challenges and possibilities when doing research on active school travel interventions in a school setting - a non-randomized pilot study assessing feasibility of an evaluation design.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA wide range of school interventions have been launched to increase childrens' physical activity. Evaluation of the effectiveness of interventions requires suitable study designs and feasible quantitative evaluations relating to the school setting. The purpose of this study was to assess the evaluation design and methods for data collection, in order to make decisions about approaching forthcoming studies of the effectiveness of active school travel (AST) interventions.
methodsChildren from four Swedish schools in fifth grade (11-12 years old) participated in this non-randomized pilot study, two schools received an AST intervention and two schools were controls. The school-based AST intervention Sustainable Innovation for Children Transporting Actively (SICTA) was conducted by teachers in the classroom setting during four weeks. To assess feasibility of the evaluation design and methods for data collection a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods were applied, using participation- and response rates, a feasibility questionnaire and focus group interviews.
resultsOut of 25 potential schools, four schools accepted participation with explicit allocation requests preventing randomization. Out of 181 children, 107 children (59%) accepted participation. A total of 82% of the participating children reported active travel before the AST intervention, and 80% found reporting of daily school travels in the web-based survey to be easy. The children were in general positive about participating in the study and the methods for data collection were considered easy for the participating children to conduct and to blend well with usual school activities. There was an imbalance in reporting rates between intervention and control schools as well as a decrease in reporting rates during the study period.
conclusionsOur results highlight the complexity and challenges in conducting controlled research among school children. Although children were positive about participation and found reporting to be easy, our results invoke the need to use alternative research designs and recruitment strategies that also attract children using non-active modes of travel when evaluating AST interventions in school contexts.
trial registrationThe study is registered 2023/11/02 with Researchweb, the Swedish Register for Research with registration number 281,543. The registration can be reached via this link: https://www.researchweb.org/is/sverige/project/281543 .
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.