Lonsdale 2019a.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: cluster‐RCT
Participants	School inclusion criteria: (1) school with students enrolled in Grades 8 and 9; (2) funded by the New Sout Wales Department of Education; (3) permission granted by the principal, the head PE teacher, and at least 1 Grade 8 PE teacher; (4) located in Western Sydney; (5) in a postal code with a mean decile rank that was below the median on the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage School exclusion criteria: — Student inclusion criteria: students physically able to take part in Grade 8 PE Student exclusion criteria: — Setting: school Age group: adolescent Gender distribution: females and males Country/Countries where trial was performed: Australia
Interventions	Intervention: the 'Activity and Motivation in Physical Education’ (AMPED) intervention had 2 aims: (1) to help teachers deliver lessons that maximised opportunities for MVPA; and (2) to help teachers enhance their students’ motivation towards PE. Teachers’ learnt strategies that were categorised under 2 headings: (A) ‘Maximising Movement and Skill Development’ and (B) ‘Reducing Transition Time’. Strategies to enhance student motivation were organised under 2 further headings: (C) ‘Building Competence’ and (D) ‘Supporting Students’. Face‐to‐face workshops included brief presentations by the research team, but many of these teachers worked independently on the project’s website. This independent work was designed to help ensure teachers were comfortable working on the website, to facilitate later use. Throughout the entire intervention, teachers had access to online resources, a discussion forum, videos of good/poor practice, and the project’s mobile phone application, which included implementation and self‐reflection prompts Comparator: standard teaching, wait‐list control  Duration of intervention: 7 to 8 months Duration of follow‐up: 14 to 15 months Number of schools: 14 Theoretical framework: self‐determination theory,
Outcomes	PA duration Sedentary time
Study registration	ACTRN12614000184673
Publication details	Language of publication: English Funding: non‐commercial funding (research funding body) Publication status: peer‐reviewed journal
Stated aim for study	"The purpose of this study is to evaluate an intervention designed to increase the amount of health‐enhancing PA that secondary school students accumulate during their school‐based PE lessons"
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote from publication: "using a computer‐based randomisation plan generator...a researcher not associated with recruitment or data collection, and who will be blind to school identity, will carry out randomisation procedures"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Comment: All 14 eligible schools randomised at 1 time point
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote from publication: "students participating in the study will also be blinded to hypotheses and school allocation. Teachers will be aware of their allocation to the intervention or control condition" Comment: using only objective physical activity assessment, teacher's knowledge unlikely to bias results
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote from publication: "trained research assistants who will be blinded to school allocation will conduct baseline, post‐intervention and maintenance phase assessments"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Physical activity and sedentary time	High risk	Comment: 34% and 44% of physical activity data missing in intervention and control groups, respectively, at end of study
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Comment: all relevant outcomes reported
Cluster RCT ‐ Recruitment bias	High risk	Comment: teachers and students enrolled after schools randomised; teachers aware of allocation
Cluster RCT ‐ Baseline imbalance	Low risk	Comment: baseline characteristics balanced between 2 groups
Cluster RCT ‐ Loss of clusters	Low risk	Comment: no clusters lost
Cluster RCT ‐ Incorrect analysis	Low risk	Quote from publication: "we included four random intercept effects for: (1) lesson; (2) student; (3) teacher; and (4) class. When preliminary analyses suggested clustering at the school level, we included a fifth random intercept effect for this level"