Jones 2008.
Methods | Design: cluster randomized controlled trial Theoretical framework: Transtheoretical Model, Social Cognitive Theory Number of intervention groups: 1 Number of control groups: 1 Follow‐up: immediately post‐intervention | |
Participants | N (intervention): 291
N (control): 315 Age (mean): 11.6 years Sex: female Ethnicity: White |
|
Interventions | Country: US Setting: school, unstated if urban or rural Provider: peer, physical education (PE) teachers and other teachers Duration: 1.5 school years Intervention: the IMPACT intervention included 3 major components: 1) a health curriculum for grades 6 and 7 (classroom lessons and behavioral journalism); 2) a PE program; and 3) a school food service component that emphasized calcium‐rich food choices). Peer‐based behavioral journalism involved the use of media (e.g. school‐based newsletter with role model stories). The intervention used a 6th grade health curriculum, including 16 sessions that were implemented during PE classes, 3 times per week. The lessons in this curriculum promoted increased consumption of calcium‐rich foods and increased weight‐bearing physical activities. The curriculum also contained behaviorally based and active lessons adapted to the PE environment. Science‐based lessons were administered during 7th grade science classes. The PE component of the program (i.e. "IMPACTivities") was implemented in the 6th and 7th grades during PE and athletics classes. The classes contained an initial 10‐min warm‐up (i.e. high‐impact activities ‐ rope‐jumping, circuit training, and box‐step activities) Control: the control group participated in the usual health program | |
Outcomes | Duration of physical activity Television viewing (minutes spent watching television) |
|
Notes | ||
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Comment: a computer‐generated random numbers table was used for the randomization process |
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 | High risk | Comment: no information given, likely not done |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | Comment: incomplete outcome data was not adequately addressed |
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 |