ArticleBMC public health2026
Feasibility of a school-based peer-led high-intensity interval training intervention: the Young Fitness Leaders project.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWhile school-based high-intensity interval training (HIIT) has demonstrated efficacy for improving adolescents’ physical and mental health, interventions have largely been researcher-led, which limits scalability. This could be resolved via peer-led programmes, whereby older pupils (i.e., peer-leaders) deliver HIIT to younger pupils (i.e., peer-recipients). We aimed to explore the feasibility of a school-based peer-led HIIT intervention.
methodsUsing a non-randomised controlled trial design, 44 Year 7 pupils (aged 12.1 ± 0.3 years [mean ± SD]) were recruited from one school in North East England, with 21 (8 girls) allocated as peer-recipients to an 8-week HIIT intervention, and 23 (17 girls) as controls. Five Year 12–13 pupils (aged 17.3 ± 0.4 years) were recruited as peer-leaders and received training on school-based HIIT based on boxing and whole-body exercises. Peer-leaders then delivered twice weekly HIIT sessions during morning tutor time. Primary outcomes were recruitment, retention, attendance and acceptability (explored in post-intervention focus groups with peer-recipients, peer-leaders and teachers). Secondary outcomes included intervention fidelity (via researcher field note observations and heart rate monitoring), and preliminary impact on physical fitness and psychological outcomes.
resultsRecruitment was 72% (21/29 eligible pupils), 74% (23/31) and 42% (5/12) for peer-recipients, controls and peer-leaders, respectively. All control participants completed the study; one peer-leader left the school, and two peer-recipients withdrew (94% overall retention). Intervention attendance (expressed as percentage of scheduled sessions) was 73 ± 31%. The intervention was generally well-received by peer-recipients, peer-leaders and teachers. The mean peak heart rate across all repetitions was 76% of age-predicted maximal, with a between- and within-participant variability of 6% points and 8% points, respectively. For the physical fitness and psychological outcomes, intervention effect directions were inconsistent and effect estimates imprecise.
conclusionsPeer-led HIIT may represent a scalable and feasible school-based physical activity model from a recruitment, retention, attendance and acceptability perspective. However, intervention heart rates and session observations suggest HIIT activities were not always delivered and performed as intended, which could limit intervention effectiveness in larger-scale trials. Future iterations of peer-led HIIT programmes should focus on refining intervention delivery by providing an enhanced training and support package for peer-leaders.
trial registrationThe trial was registered on ISRCTN, the UK’s Clinical Study Registry on 6th March 2023 ( https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN89390191 ). The trial registration number is ISRCTN89390191.
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.