Daly 2016.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods | Study design: cluster‐RCT | |
| Participants |
School inclusion criteria: suburb primary schools in Canberra, where the average household income approximates the mean for Australian city dwellers School exclusion criteria: — Student inclusion criteria: all Grade 2 children in good health, able to participate freely in PE, willing to undertake a series of venous blood collections Student exclusion criteria: — Setting: school Age group: children/adolescents Gender distribution: females and males Country/Countries where trial was performed: Australia |
|
| Interventions |
Intervention: specialist PE teacher to replace general classroom teacher programme. An all‐inclusive, enjoyable, challenging yet non‐threatening environment for PA that encouraged students to discover answers to a range of physical movement problems and game strategies themselves, through experimentation and self‐discovery. Lesson plans included game play, fitness activities, skill practice, and core movements Comparator: continued with usual PE programme (traditional fitness and stretching exercise, including running and walking around the oval) conducted by the generalist classroom teachers, none of whom were formally trained in PE. Teachers rarely participated in activities Duration of intervention: 4 years Duration of follow‐up: 4 years Number of schools: 29 Theoretical framework: — |
|
| Outcomes | PA duration Sedentary time |
|
| Study registration | ACTRN12612000027819 | |
| Publication details |
Language of publication: English Funding: other funding (charitable trust) Publication status: peer‐reviewed journal |
|
| Stated aim for study | "The primary aim of the Lifestyle of Our Kids project is to investigate relationships of (a) PA in general, and (b) an externally provided specialist PE program in schools, with physiological and psychological health and development in young children. This study is intended to provide a range of integrated scientific evidence upon which conclusions may be drawn in regard to optimising childhood health and development" | |
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Quote from publication: "after acceptance, the allocation of schools to the intervention or control groups was determined randomly, 2 members of the research team drawing from a shuffled set of 29 envelopes, each of which contained a school name" |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Comment: allocation concealed until after enrolment |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Comment: participants not blinded |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | High risk | Comment: research staff blinded to group only for some measures |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Physical activity and sedentary time | Low risk | Comment: large loss to follow‐up but unrelated to intervention (i.e. relocation) |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | High risk | Comment: academic performance and hand‐eye coordination not reported |
| Cluster RCT ‐ Recruitment bias | Low risk | Comment: students enrolled after randomisation |
| Cluster RCT ‐ Baseline imbalance | Low risk | Comment: no baseline imbalance |
| Cluster RCT ‐ Loss of clusters | Low risk | Comment: no clusters lost |
| Cluster RCT ‐ Incorrect analysis | Low risk | Quote from publication: "school, year, and subject were included in the model as random effects to account for the sample design and hence possible dependence structure in the data" |