Kipping 2008.
| 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): 304 N (control): 300 Age (mean): 9.4 years Sex: male and female Ethnicity: unstated |
|
| Interventions | Country: UK Setting: school, unstated whether urban or rural Provider: classroom teachers Duration: 5 months Intervention: the intervention included 16 lessons on healthy eating, increasing physical activity, and reducing television viewing (adapted and abbreviated form of the 'Eat Well Keep Moving' program). The 10 teachers providing the intervention were trained by 2 other teachers familiar with the program and provided with further training/study materials (i.e. lesson plans for 9 physical activity lessons, 6 nutrition lessons and 1 lesson about screen viewing). In the physical activity lessons, the children played games based on the food groups using photographs of food that reinforced the theory taught in the nutrition lessons Control: the control school were provided with the teacher training and materials following study completion |
|
| Outcomes | Television viewing (minutes spent watching television) Body mass index (kg/m2) |
|
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Quote: "random allocation to intervention or control school was concealed and done by one of the authors" (Kipping 2008, p469) Comment: not stated exactly how the randomization sequence was generated by this author |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote: "random allocation to intervention or control school was concealed and done by one of the authors (DAL). The investigator who did the random allocation had no prior knowledge of characteristics of any of the schools" (Kipping 2008, p471) |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Quote: "school health assistants, who were blinded to the allocation of schools, took height and weight measurements" (Kipping 2008, p470) Comment: there was some initiative taken to blind although incomplete blinding could still introduce bias |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | Quote: "all analyses were undertaken using an intention to treat protocol, regardless of the number of lessons taught in intervention schools. However, we only included in the analyses those children with complete data at baseline and outcome" (Kipping 2008, p470) Comment: therefore, intention to treat not done |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Comment: all outcomes identified a priori were reported on |
| Confounders controlled? | Low risk | Comment: all relevant confounders were controlled for |
| Data collection methods valid and reliable? | High risk | Comment: the physical activity instrument was not shown to be valid or reliable although other measurements were |