ArticleHealth promotion international2025
Reducing classroom sedentary behaviour: a scoping review of interventions and student involvement.
Article in Health promotion international, 2025. 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
Abstract
Sedentary behaviour is increasingly common and is becoming a challenge to maintain the young population healthy. This scoping review aims to identify the existing literature on strategies for altering the classroom design to reduce sedentary behaviour in classroom settings during lessons and the impact of interventions. Three electronic databases (ERIC, PsycInfo, and Scopus) were searched for relevant literature. A total of 40 eligible articles from different countries published between January 2003 and April 2024 were included in the review, which was carried out to identify interventions to prevent sedentary behaviour by redesigning the classroom. The methodology was conducted by the framework presented by Arksey and O'Malley and is reported following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The findings reveal various approaches to preventing sedentary behaviour through active desks (e.g. standing desks, sit-to-stand desks, bicycling desks, and stability balls). Most studies focused on stand-biased desks, targeting students (9-12 years old) and were primarily from the USA. Since standing was voluntary, only minor bouts of standing and movement were typically achieved. Only a few studies included partial co-design elements. The thematic analysis identifies the impact of the different interventions. Five themes were found: impact on physical activity, classroom behaviour, cognitive performance, physical and/or mental well-being and challenges. The findings suggest that standing at standing desks while studying does not pose significant physical or mental challenges for students, although some physical fatigue was observed after prolonged standing up. However, a key gap was the absence of co-design in the intervention process. Trial registration: The scoping review protocol was not pre-registered.
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.