Okely 2011.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods | Study design: cluster‐RCT | |
| Participants |
School inclusion criteria: secondary schools in New South Wales that submitted an expression of interest and completed a profile used to pair‐match schools School exclusion criteria: — Student inclusion criteria: girls, formally enrolled in Grade 8 within participating schools, provided written consent from themselves and their parent(s) or guardian(s) Student exclusion criteria: — Setting: school Age group: adolescents Gender distribution: females Country/Countries where trial was performed: Australia |
|
| Interventions |
Intervention: schools developed and implemented unique 18‐month action plans with a member of the research team. Intervention strategies were designed to prevent a decline in participation in MVPA levels among girls over the course of the intervention. Each school followed an identical process in developing the intervention, which involved developing an action learning team and the school‐specific action plan. The action plan addressed formal curriculum, school environment, and links with the community. During intervention, schools participated in monthly meetings with a member of the research team to share their progress towards study outcomes Comparator: continuation of their usual programmes Duration of intervention: 18 months Duration of follow‐up: 18 months Number of schools: 25 Theoretical framework: health‐promoting schools framework |
|
| Outcomes | PA duration Sedentary time |
|
| Study registration | ACTRN12610001077055 | |
| Publication details |
Language of publication: English Funding: non‐commercial funding (governmental organisation) Publication status: peer‐reviewed journal |
|
| Stated aim for study | "The primary aim of the study was to test if an 18‐month school‐based intervention targeting school sport and PE (through the formal curriculum), school ethos (including policies and school breaks such as lunchtime), and links with the local community, could prevent the decline in objectively measured PA compared with matched control schools" | |
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Comment: randomisation using a computer‐based random number algorithm |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | High risk | Comment: not clear, but 1 matched school replaced a lost cluster |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Comment: teachers and students blinded to matched comparison schools |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Comment: trained data collectors were blinded to group allocation |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Physical activity and sedentary time | Low risk | Comment: small number lost to end of study testing without reason; similar between groups. Missing accelerometer data imputed |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | Comment: all outcomes reported in protocol paper published |
| Cluster RCT ‐ Recruitment bias | High risk | Comment: randomisation completed prior to baseline data collection |
| Cluster RCT ‐ Baseline imbalance | Unclear risk | Comment: not assessed |
| Cluster RCT ‐ Loss of clusters | High risk | Comment: 1 cluster lost from control group |
| Cluster RCT ‐ Incorrect analysis | Low risk | Comment: all analyses accounted for hierarchical structure of data |