Table 2.

The different axes of the intervention: content and objectives.

Theme of each action according to the level of the socioecological level				Content
Intraindividual (level 1): children
		Workshop 1: “What is PA?”		Information about PA was given: the different intensities, the principal differences between PA and sport, and the benefits of PA on health.
		Workshop 2: “How to practice PA?”		Different activities were presented to the child to be more active at school, in his/her neighborhood, in a sports club, and at different moments of the day.
		Workshop 3: “What are sedentary habits?”		Information about the different sedentary behaviors that children can have in a day was given, as well as the effect of cumulative ST on health. The possibilities to decrease ST at each time of the day were analyzed.
		Workshop 4: “What would you like to draw on the schoolyard to play, run, and have fun?”		Children had to draw schoolyard equipment and materials that they would like to have, to allow them to have fun and to move around. These proposals were then studied in each class, classified, and selected to make a proposal per class.
		Workshop 5: “How does the accelerometer measure PA and ST?”		The mechanical operation of the accelerometer was studied. The data from the accelerometer were analyzed. The children determined their compliance with the WHO guidelines.
		Workshop 6: “Do I practice enough PA every day to be healthy?”		An analysis of the time devoted to the practice of PA and ST every day was made for each child. Discussions were held with the children about these data and strategies to further increase PA and decrease ST. They identified and worked on barriers to PA practice.
		Workshop 7: “Have I changed my PA practice? Am I trying to be less sedentary?” and “What did I learn about PA and ST?”		An assessment was made with children on behavioral changes in terms of PA and ST and on the knowledge acquired on PA, ST, and more generally on health.
		Workshop 8: Drawing contest		A drawing contest on the theme “I’m moving” was done at the end of the intervention period.
		Activities in the schoolyard: “What games can I play...?”		A session was organized in the schoolyard to identify games that can be played in the schoolyard or in leisure time, alone or with friends. For example: “what games can I play with a cord?” The children imagined and listed games and demonstrated them.
		Active classroom: “Spelling and mathematics”		Demonstration of active classroom workshops for further use by the teachers: “Spelling activity,” in which children had to touch different parts of the body while spelling out the letters of words. The words were more or less complicated depending on the grade of the children. (2) “Arithmetic exercise,” in which children had to make a jump after having said the result of the addition or multiplication.
		Sedentary breaks: “Relaxation and breathing”		The activity break included breathing, relaxation, and visualization exercises, or body movements such as motor coordination, balance, and flexibility exercises. These sedentary breaks did not include academic knowledge.
		Activities outside of school: Photovoice workshop		Excursion to the school neighborhood to observe the areas in which one can practice PA and to identify the areas dangerous for practice. The children took pictures of the different areas with tablets. Back in class, the children showed their photos to their classmates and explained why they took this picture (if it was possible to practice PA in this area, or if it was a dangerous area).
		Feedback		Individual summary sheets with PA and ST levels and performance at the different motor tests were given to each child in a graphic format after each assessment. Explanations and consideration took place in the classroom.
Interpersonal (level 2): parents
		Information meeting		The overall project was presented (ie, all the activities planned for parents and children and teachers, school, and the involvement of local political groups).
			Workshop 1: “What is PA?” and “How to practice PA?”	Information about PA was given. Consideration of the different opportunities to practice PA: for the parents themselves and with their children. Facilitators and barriers to PA practice were identified.
			Workshop 2: “What is ST?”	Information about ST was given: different sedentary behaviors they can have in a day and the effect of cumulative ST on health. This included the study of different possibilities to decrease ST at each time of the day for them and their child.
			Workshop 3: “How can I influence my child’s PA? How do my child’s friends influence him/her in his/her practice of PA and health behaviors?”	The influence of parents and friends on the health behaviors of the child was studied.
			Workshop 4: “Is the environment adapted to practice physical activity?”	The different pictures taken by the children in the “Photovoice Workshop” were analyzed and discussed. A special point was made about the facilitators and the barriers to practice of PA, for them and for their children.
			Workshop 5: “Have I changed my PA practice? Am I trying to be less sedentary? Is this also the case for my child? What did I learn about PA and ST?”	An assessment was made of their own behavioral changes in terms of PA and ST as well as for their child and of the knowledge acquired with these workshops on PA, ST, and more generally on health.
		Newsletter		After each workshop, all parents received a newsletter with the principal information given during the workshop.
		Feedback		Individual summary sheets with PA and ST levels and performance at the different motor tests were given to each child in a graphic format after each assessment. Parents had access to these.
Interpersonal (level 2): teachers
	Workshop 1: “What is PA? What is ST and sedentary habits?”			Theoretical knowledge about PA and ST was proposed.
	Workshop 2: Strategic issues to increase children’s PA			Consideration of how to include information related to PA in classes: how to increase PA and decrease ST at school and especially in the classroom.
	Workshop 3: Concrete formation on active classroom and sedentary break activities			Ideas on how to conduct an active classroom were presented: (1) proposal of active classroom exercises and sedentary breaks (breathing, relaxation, and visualization exercises, or body movements such as motor coordination, balance, and flexibility exercises); (2) advice and guidance on the implementation; (3) material organization of the classroom to increase movement, etc.
	Workshop 4: Main influences around the children			A discussion was held on the influence of parents, friends, and teachers on children’s health behaviors. Then the environmental factors facilitating, or not, the practice PA were discussed. This led to the construction of a multilevel model and the presentation of the principal theories used in this study (ie, the socioecological model and the self-determination theory).
	Workshop 5: Final assessment of the program intervention			An assessment of the school-based actions they had implemented was made: a discussion on their opinion about the intervention, its strength and weaknesses, and its effects on their PA and ST behaviors as well as on the children’s and their parents.
	Feedback			The general PA and ST levels were presented to the teachers after each assessment.
Environmental (level 3): school
	Physical and material modifications of the schoolyard			After children’s workshop 4, each class made a design proposal for the schoolyard (marks to be drawn and materials to add for recess). An assessment of these proposals was made with the teachers, the research team, and the representatives of the education department of the town hall, and a choice was made about the implementation of the material required. It led to delineation of different games in the different schoolyards (ie, football field, squares with numbers and letters, snail hopscotch) and acquisition of small material (ie, balls, ropes).
	Organizational modifications of lunch break			In line with the baseline measurement analyses, actions to reduce ST during lunch break were engaged in cooperation with the canteen’s agents and services. The aim was to move from 90 minutes of sitting time to 50-60 minutes in order to free up time to play in the schoolyard before going back to the classroom. Thus, the research team proposed changes to the organization (ie, 2 canteen services, table-based group organization) from which the educators in charge of lunch time made a choice.
	Organizational modifications of recess games			The schoolyard was divided into different areas dedicated to specific games during recess and lunch time. This provided an opportunity to have a diversity of games and sports to play together or alone (instead of having one game/sport taking all the schoolyard). The schedule was proposed by the children and supervised by the teachers.
Political (level 4): local politic groups
		Collaboration with the city town hall		The city town hall helped in the implementation of the intervention. It allowed the interactions with the canteen agents for the reorganization of the lunch time and the drawings in the schoolyard were made by the education service of the city.
		Collaboration with national education authorities		They authorized the implementation of the school-based intervention and helped with the organization of the actions. In addition, these authorities made it possible to officially validate the training for teachers as part of their professional learning curriculum.
		Study developed by “CAPAS-City”		This study was conducted by CAPAS-City (founded by the European Regional Development Fund [FEDER]): this center is in charge of developing PA programs and promotions actions.