Peralta 2009.
| Methods | Design: randomized controlled trial Theoretical framework: Social Cognitive Theory Number of intervention groups: 1 Number of control groups: 1 Follow‐up: immediately post‐intervention | |
| Participants | N (intervention): 16
N (control): 16 Age (mean): 12.5 years Sex: male Ethnicity: unstated |
|
| Interventions | Country: Australia Setting: school, unstated if urban or rural Provider: research worker, lay person, physical education (PE) teacher Duration: 16 weeks Intervention: the intervention program was primarily based on Social Cognitive Theory, with 16 program weeks, with each week comprising 1 x 60‐min curriculum session and 2 x 20‐min lunchtime physical activity sessions. Each 60‐min curriculum session included practical and/or theoretical components focused on promoting physical activity through increasing physical self‐esteem and self‐efficacy, reducing time spent in small screen recreation on weekends, decreasing sweetened beverage consumption, and increasing fruit consumption and the acquisition and practice of self‐regulatory behaviors such as goal setting, time management, and identifying and overcoming barriers. Behavior modification techniques (e.g. group goals converting time spent in physical activity to kilometers to reach a specified destination, and the use of incentives) were used. The practical component included modified games and activities. The researcher primarily facilitated the intervention with staff and parents' involvement. A Program Champion (PE teacher) liaised with School Executive and other staff to promote the program within the school and assist with logistical requirements. Eleventh grade students peer facilitated lunchtime sessions, based on their potential to be positive role models and had one 20‐min training session. Parents were emailed 6 newsletters throughout, informing them of the program content, motivating them, and suggesting strategies to engage the family in healthy behaviors, creating a stronger connection between parents and the school Control: participated in 16 x 60‐min physical activity curriculum at the same time as the intervention group, with a school PE teacher facilitating the control group | |
| Outcomes | Duration of physical activity 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) | Low risk | Comment: participants were randomized, using a computer‐based number producing algorithm, to either the intervention or active comparison group |
| 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 | Quote: "trained independent assessors, blind to group allocation, conducted the measurements" (Peralta 2009, p538) |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Comment: outcome data complete |
| 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: although reliability and validity were discussed with some of the data collection methods, not all were discussed |