Roth 2015.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study name: PAKT project Study design: cluster‐RCT Intervention period: 11 months Follow‐up period (post‐intervention): 2‐4 months Differences in baseline characteristics: reported Reliable outcomes: reported Protection against contamination: reported Unit of allocation: preschool Unit of analysis: individual
Participants	N (control baseline) = 341 N (control follow‐up) = 289 N (intervention baseline) = 368 N (intervention follow‐up) = 319 Setting (and number by study group): 41 preschools Recruitment: all preschools in the relevant geographical areas were approached, except those with a special focus on PA promotion Geographic region: cities and counties of Wurzburg and Kitzingen, 2 regions in south Germany Percentage of eligible population enrolled: 72% participants Mean age: intervention + control 4.7 ± 0.6; intervention: 4.7 ± 0.7; control: 4.7 ± 0.6 Sex: intervention, 47.6% female; control, 51.6% female
Interventions	Aimed to evaluate a multicomponent, child‐appropriate preschool intervention programme led by preschool teachers to enhance PA and motor skill performance in 4‐ and 5‐year‐old children. Daily PA session lasting 30 min and PA homework over 1 academic year. Intervention was designed by professional. Intervention included educational components for parents and teachers. Implementation of the intervention was monitored at least once per 8 weeks. PA intervention vs control
Outcomes	Outcome measures Primary outcome: composite motor skills, MVPA Secondary outcomes: BMI centile, sum of 4 skinfolds (triceps, biceps, subscapular, and suprailiac), blood pressure, accidents and infections, MVPA and composite motor skills at final follow‐up, single motor performance tasks including the obstacle course, one‐foot stand, balancing backward, standing long jump, jumping to‐and‐fro sidewise, and target throw at all time points. Process evaluation: NR
Implementation‐related factors	Theoretical basis: NR Resources for intervention implementation: reported Who delivered the intervention: reported PROGRESS categories assessed at baseline: gender, SES, race/ethnicity (migrant status) PROGRESS categories analysed at outcome: NR Outcomes relating to harms/unintended effects: reported (accidents and infections) Intervention included strategies to address diversity or disadvantage: NR Economic evaluation: NR
Notes	Funding: the authors declare that the institution of household, KCR and KR had financial support from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) (Grant Nr. 01EL0606, BMBF) and from the BARMER GEK (formerly Gmuender Ersatz‐Kasse GEK) for the submitted project. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Implemented by preschool teachers without further costs
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer‐generated random number table stratified for urban or rural location
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomisation was performed by a person blinded to the identity of the preschool
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Outcome assessors blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	13%‐15% attrition
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Protocol or trial register not found
Other bias	Low risk	No additional threats to validity
Other bias‐ timing of recruitment of clusters	Low risk	Figures shows recruitment happened prior to randomisation