A program evaluation of an in-school daily physical activity initiative for children and youth

Emily Bremer, Jeffrey D Graham, Scott Veldhuizen, John Cairney, Emily Bremer, Jeffrey D Graham, Scott Veldhuizen, John Cairney

Abstract

Background: The school system is one setting in which children's physical activity levels may be increased through daily physical activity (DPA) policies and initiatives. Adherence to DPA policies is typically poor and results are limited in regard to the associated benefits for participating children. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate a range of psychosocial outcomes following a community-led, in-school DPA initiative for 9-14 year old children and youth.

Methods: This program evaluation examined the impact of a DPA program consisting of 20 min of teacher-led DPA for 20 consecutive weeks. Student outcomes were measured using a questionnaire administered at three time points: baseline, mid-intervention, and post-intervention. A teacher questionnaire regarding program adherence and student behaviour was completed at post-intervention. Mixed effects models were used to test for intervention effects, with random intercepts for students, classes, and schools, as well as fixed effects for age and sex. Due to the large number of outcomes measured, we first conducted an omnibus test of the intervention effect followed by three exploratory analyses examining each outcome separately, associations between outcomes and program adherence, and results from the teacher survey.

Results: Thirty classes (N = 19 experimental) from 7 schools participated in the study, with a total of 362 children (n = 265 experimental). There was no significant overall effect of the intervention (z = 0.89, p = 0.38) and the exploratory analyses demonstrated significant differences only for self-esteem and subjective happiness, with the control group slightly increasing relative to the experimental group. Teacher-reported adherence to the program was poor with only 21% of teachers adhering to the program. There was no association between overall adherence and student reported outcomes; however, positive correlations were present between adherence and teacher-reported student behaviour.

Conclusions: The DPA program evaluated here did not improve the psychosocial well-being of elementary school-aged children more than usual practices. However, adherence to the program was poor and it did not have a negative effect on the students. Future work is needed on how best to support DPA implementation in the context of the school day and how student well-being may be positively impacted through school-based physical activity.

Trial registration: Program Evaluation of an in-school Daily Physical Activity Initiative NCT03618927 , August 6, 2018. Retrospectively registered.

Keywords: Education; Health policy; Intervention; Psychosocial health.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics approval was obtained from the McMaster Research Ethics Board and the Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board’s research ethics committee. Written informed consent was received from the parents of all participating children, in addition to the participating teachers, and children provided written assent to participate.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

    1. Janssen I, LeBlanc AG. Systematic review of the health benefits of physical activity and fitness in school-aged children and youth. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010;7:1. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-7-40.
    1. Lubans DR, Richards J, Hillman C, Faulkner G, Beauchamp M, Nilsson M, et al. Physical activity for cognitive and mental health in youth: a systematic review of mechanisms. Pediatrics. 2016;138:–e20161642.
    1. Ortega FB, Ruiz JR, Hurtig-Wennlöf A, Sjöström M. Physically active adolescents are more likely to have a healthier cardiovascular fitness level independently of their adiposity status. The European youth heart study. Rev Esp Cardiol Engl Ed. 2008;61:123–129. doi: 10.1157/13116199.
    1. Lubans DR, Morgan PJ, Cliff DP, Barnett LM, Okely AD. Fundamental movement skills in children and adolescents. Sports Med. 2010;40:1019–1035. doi: 10.2165/11536850-000000000-00000.
    1. de Greeff JW, Bosker RJ, Oosterlaan J, Visscher C, Hartman E. Effects of physical activity on executive functions, attention and academic performance in preadolescent children: a meta-analysis. J Sci Med Sport. 2017; 10.1016/j.jsams.2017.09.595.
    1. Hillman CH, Pontifex MB, Castelli DM, Khan NA, Raine LB, Scudder MR, et al. Effects of the FITKids randomized controlled trial on executive control and brain function. Pediatrics. 2014;134:e1063–e1071. doi: 10.1542/peds.2013-3219.
    1. Sibley BA, Etnier JL. The relationship between physical activity and cognition in children: a meta-analysis. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2003;15:243–256. doi: 10.1123/pes.15.3.243.
    1. Fedewa AL, Ahn S. The effects of physical activity and physical fitness on children’s achievement and cognitive outcomes: a meta-analysis. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2011;82:521–535. doi: 10.1080/02701367.2011.10599785.
    1. Marques A, Santos DA, Hillman CH, Sardinha LB. How does academic achievement relate to cardiorespiratory fitness, self-reported physical activity and objectively reported physical activity: a systematic review in children and adolescents aged 6–18 years. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52:1039.
    1. Sallis JF, Bull F, Guthold R, Heath GW, Inoue S, Kelly P, et al. Progress in physical activity over the Olympic quadrennium. Lancet. 2016;388:1325–1336. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30581-5.
    1. Sallis JF, Prochaska JJ, Taylor WC, others A review of correlates of physical activity of children and adolescents. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32:963–975. doi: 10.1097/00005768-200005000-00014.
    1. Ahn S, Fedewa AL. A meta-analysis of the relationship between Children’s physical activity and mental health. J Pediatr Psychol. 2011;36:385–397. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsq107.
    1. Ekeland E. Can exercise improve self esteem in children and young people? A systematic review of randomised controlled trials * commentary. Br J Sports Med. 2005;39:792–798. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2004.017707.
    1. Gill M, Chan-Golston AM, Rice LN, Roth SE, Crespi CM, Cole BL, et al. Correlates of social support and its association with physical activity among young adolescents. Health Educ Behav. 2017;45(2):207–16.
    1. Tremblay MS, Warburton DER, Janssen I, Paterson DH, Latimer AE, Rhodes RE, et al. New Canadian physical activity guidelines. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2011;36:36–46. doi: 10.1139/H11-009.
    1. Barnes JD, Cameron C, Carson V, Chaput J-P, Faulkner GEJ, Janson K, et al. Results from Canada’s 2016 ParticipACTION report card on physical activity for children and youth. J Phys Act Health. 2016;13(11 Suppl 2):S110–S116. doi: 10.1123/jpah.2016-0300.
    1. Rasberry CN, Lee SM, Robin L, Laris BA, Russell LA, Coyle KK, et al. The association between school-based physical activity, including physical education, and academic performance: a systematic review of the literature. Prev Med. 2011;52:S10–S20. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.01.027.
    1. Watson A, Timperio A, Brown H, Best K, Hesketh KD. Effect of classroom-based physical activity interventions on academic and physical activity outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14 10.1186/s12966-017-0569-9.
    1. Webster CA, Beets M, Weaver RG, Vazou S, Russ L. Rethinking recommendations for implementing comprehensive school physical activity programs: a partnership model. Quest. 2015;67:185–202. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2015.1017588.
    1. Ontario Ministry of Education . Policy/Program Memorandum No. 138: Daily Physical Activity in Elementary Schools, Grades 1–8. 2005.
    1. Ontario Ministry of Education . Daily physical activity in schools: Guide for school boards. 2006.
    1. Allison KR, Vu-Nguyen K, Ng B, Schoueri-Mychasiw N, Dwyer JJM, Manson H, et al. Evaluation of daily physical activity (DPA) policy implementation in Ontario: surveys of elementary school administrators and teachers. BMC Public Health. 2016;16 10.1186/s12889-016-3423-0.
    1. Olstad DL, Campbell EJ, Raine KD, Nykiforuk CI. A multiple case history and systematic review of adoption, diffusion, implementation and impact of provincial daily physical activity policies in Canadian schools. BMC Public Health. 2015;15 10.1186/s12889-015-1669-6.
    1. Stone MR, Faulkner GEJ, Zeglen-Hunt L, Cowie BJ. The daily physical activity (DPA) policy in Ontario: is it working? An examination using accelerometry-measured physical activity data. Can J Public Health. 2012;103:170–174.
    1. Pearlin LI, Menaghan EG, Lieberman MA, Mullan JT. The stress process. J Health Soc Behav. 1981;22:337–356. doi: 10.2307/2136676.
    1. Moilanen KL. The adolescent self-regulatory inventory: the development and validation of a questionnaire of short-term and long-term self-regulation. J Youth Adolesc. 2007;36:835–848. doi: 10.1007/s10964-006-9107-9.
    1. Goodman R. The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: a research note. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1997;38:581–586. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1997.tb01545.x.
    1. Goodman R, Meltzer H, Bailey V. The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: a pilot study on the validity of the self-report version. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1998;7:125–130. doi: 10.1007/s007870050057.
    1. Essau CA, Conradt J, Sasagawa S, Ollendick TH. Prevention of anxiety symptoms in children: results from a universal school-based trial. Behav Ther. 2012;43:450–464. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2011.08.003.
    1. Muris P, Meesters C, Eijkelenboom A, Vincken M. The self-report version of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire: its psychometric properties in 8- to 13-year-old non-clinical children. Br J Clin Psychol. 2004;43:437–448. doi: 10.1348/0144665042388982.
    1. Goodman R, Meltzer H, Bailey V. The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: a pilot study on the validity of the self-report version. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2003;15:173–177. doi: 10.1080/0954026021000046137.
    1. Rosenberg M. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1965.
    1. Hagborg WJ. Scores of middle-school-age students on the Rosenberg self-esteem scale. Psychol Rep. 1996;78:1071–1074. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1996.78.3c.1071.
    1. Duckworth AL, Peterson C, Matthews MD, Kelly DR. Grit: perseverance and passion for long-term goals. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007;92:1087–1101. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087.
    1. Duckworth AL, Quinn PD. Development and validation of the short grit scale (grit–S) J Pers Assess. 2009;91:166–174. doi: 10.1080/00223890802634290.
    1. Lyubomirsky S, Lepper HS. A measure of subjective happiness: preliminary reliability and construct validation. Soc Indic Res. 1999;46:137–155. doi: 10.1023/A:1006824100041.
    1. Fry MD, Guivernau M, Kim M, Newton M, Gano-Overway LA, Magyar TM. Youth perceptions of a caring climate, emotional regulation, and psychological well-being. Sport Exerc Perform Psychol. 2012;1:44–57. doi: 10.1037/a0025454.
    1. Uusitalo-Malmivaara L, Lehto JE. Social factors explaining Children’s subjective happiness and depressive symptoms. Soc Indic Res. 2013;111:603–615. doi: 10.1007/s11205-012-0022-z.
    1. Rochester Youth Development Study. Thornberry TP, Lizotte AJ, Krohn MD, Farnworth M, Jang SJ. Testing interactional theory: an examination of reciprocal causal relationships among family, school, and delinquency. J Crim Law Criminol. 1991;82:3–35. doi: 10.2307/1143788.
    1. Anderson-Butcher D, Conroy DE. Factorial and criterion validity of scores of a measure of belonging in youth development programs. Educ Psychol Meas. 2002;62:857–876. doi: 10.1177/001316402236882.
    1. Crocker PRE, Bailey DA, Faulkner RA, Kowalski KC, McGrath R. Measuring general levels of physical activity: preliminary evidence for the Physical Activity Questionnaire for Older Children. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1997;29:1344–1349. doi: 10.1097/00005768-199710000-00011.
    1. Kowalski KC, Crocker PR, Faulkner RA. Validation of the physical activity questionnaire for older children. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 1997;9:174–186. doi: 10.1123/pes.9.2.174.
    1. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman; 1997.
    1. Bandura A. Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. C. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. 2006;307–37.
    1. O’Brien PC. Procedures for comparing samples with multiple endpoints. Biometrics. 1984;40:1079–1087. doi: 10.2307/2531158.
    1. StataCorp . Stata Statistical Software: Release 14. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP; 2015.
    1. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992;112:155. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.
    1. Donnelly JE, Hillman CH, Greene JL, Hansen DM, Gibson CA, Sullivan DK, et al. Physical activity and academic achievement across the curriculum: results from a 3-year cluster-randomized trial. Prev Med. 2017;99:140–145. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.02.006.
    1. Castelli DM, Centeio EE, Nicksic HM. Preparing educators to promote and provide physical activity in schools. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2013;7:324–332. doi: 10.1177/1559827613490488.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . Comprehensive school physical activity programs: A guide for schools. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2013.
    1. National Association for Sport and Physical Education . Comprehensive school physical activity programs [position statement] Reston, VA: AAHPERD; 2008.
    1. Ekkekakis P, Parfitt G, Petruzzello SJ. The pleasure and displeasure people feel when they exercise at different intensities. Sports Med. 2011;41:641–671. doi: 10.2165/11590680-000000000-00000.
    1. Norris E, Shelton N, Dunsmuir S, Duke-Williams O, Stamatakis E. Physically active lessons as physical activity and educational interventions: a systematic review of methods and results. Prev Med. 2015;72:116–125. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.12.027.
    1. Schmidt M, Benzing V, Kamer M. Classroom-based physical activity breaks and Children’s attention: cognitive engagement works! Front Psychol. 2016;7 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01474.
    1. Schmidt M, Jäger K, Egger F, Roebers CM, Conzelmann A. Cognitively engaging chronic physical activity, but not aerobic exercise, affects executive functions in primary school children: a group-randomized controlled trial. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2015;37:575–591. doi: 10.1123/jsep.2015-0069.
    1. Furnham A. Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personal Individ Differ. 1986;7:385–400. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(86)90014-0.
    1. Godwin M, Ruhland L, Casson I, MacDonald S, Delva D, Birtwhistle R, et al. Pragmatic controlled clinical trials in primary care: the struggle between external and internal validity. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:28. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-3-28.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner