Donnelly 2009.
| Methods | Design: cluster randomized controlled trial Theoretical framework: unstated Number of intervention groups: 1 Number of control groups: 1 Follow‐up: immediately post‐intervention | |
| Participants | N (intervention): 792 N (control): 698 Age (mean): 8.2 years Sex: male and female Ethnicity: White |
|
| Interventions | Country: US Setting: school, urban Provider: classroom teachers Duration: 3 years Intervention: Physical Activity Across the Curriculum (PAAC), provided training for classroom teachers (6 hour in‐service session) to deliver existing academic lessons taught thorough physical activity, using examples from TAKE 10!, a program of the International Life Sciences Institute Research Foundation/Center for Health Promotion. 90 min/week of moderate to vigorous physically active academic lessons were delivered intermittently throughout the school day Control: regular classroom instruction without physically active lessons | |
| Outcomes | Duration of physical activity BMI (kg/m2) |
|
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Comment: no description of the randomization process given |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Comment: criterion not applicable because all participants were allocated at 1 point in time following recruitment, so at time of recruitment allocation was not known |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Comment: blinding was done where possible ‐ research assistants were blinded to condition for measurement of the primary and secondary outcomes and for data entry |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Comment: there was 2.5% missing data, not likely to affect results |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Comment: all outcomes identified a priori were reported on |
| Confounders controlled? | Low risk | Comment: all relevant confounders taken into account |
| Data collection methods valid and reliable? | Low risk | Comment: data collection tools reported to be valid and reliable |