de Greeff 2016.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods | Study design: cluster‐RCT | |
| Participants |
School inclusion criteria: primary schools in the Northern part of The Netherlands School exclusion criteria: — Student inclusion criteria: Grade 2 or 3; all children from that class participated in the intervention programme Student exclusion criteria: — Setting: school Age group: children Gender distribution: females and males Country/Countries where trial was performed: The Netherlands |
|
| Interventions |
Intervention: physically active mathematics and language lessons that were taught in the classroom. During each lesson, the children stood behind or beside their school desk. In each lesson, 10 to 15 minutes was spent on mathematics and 10 to 15 minutes on language. Physical exercises were relatively easy to perform and were aimed at exercising at moderate to vigorous intensity level. During the lessons, all children performed basic exercises and specific exercises simultaneously. Specific exercises were performed when children solved an academic task. For example, the word ‘dog’ must be spelled by jumping in place for every mentioned letter, or children had to jump 6 times to solve the multiplication ‘2 × 3’. Basic exercises (marching, jogging, or hopping in place) were performed during the remaining part of the lesson (e.g. when children were thinking about a sum) Comparator: — Duration of intervention: 2 × 22 weeks Duration of follow‐up: 3 years Number of schools: 12 Theoretical framework: — |
|
| Outcomes | Fitness BMI |
|
| Study registration | ISRCTN17021806 | |
| Publication details |
Language of publication: English Funding: non‐commercial funding (governmental organisation) Publication status: peer‐reviewed journal |
|
| Stated aim for study | "This study is part of the project ‘‘Fit en Vaardig op school’’ (fit and academically proficient at school), which is a RCT including a school‐based intervention program for primary school children with the primary aim to improve academic performance" | |
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Comment: not described |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Comment: performed by the National Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis ‐ not involved with the study |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Comment: students not blinded |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Comment: not described |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Anthropometrics, Fitness | Unclear risk | Comment: unclear where different sample sizes come from across papers |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Comment: all outcomes from clinical trials registry reported on |
| Cluster RCT ‐ Recruitment bias | Unclear risk | Comment: not described |
| Cluster RCT ‐ Baseline imbalance | Low risk | Comment: adjusted for in analysis |
| Cluster RCT ‐ Loss of clusters | High risk | Comment: 2 schools did not start the second intervention period |
| Cluster RCT ‐ Incorrect analysis | Low risk | Quote from publication: "a random intercept was considered for each child (level 1) and for each school (level 2), to account for the common experience the children share within each school" |