Peralta 2009.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: RCT
Participants	Student inclusion criteria: participants were recruited from the entire Grade 7 (12 to 13 years; N = 172) student population of a single‐sex (boys) secondary school in Sydney, Australia. Following completion of the school's compulsory fitness testing battery, students' cardiorespiratory fitness results (measured by the Multistage Fitness Test) were ranked from highest to lowest (119 to 9 laps). Students with lowest scores (< 49 laps, N = 60; placing them in the bottom 50th percentile among boys this age in New South Wales, Australia) were invited to participate Student exclusion criteria: no other inclusion or exclusion criteria Setting: school Age group: adolescents Gender distribution: males Country/Countries where trial was performed: Australia
Interventions	Intervention: the intervention programme was primarily based on social cognitive theory, with 16 program weeks, each week comprising 1 × 60‐minute curriculum session and 2 × 20‐minute lunchtime PA sessions. Each 60‐minute curriculum session included practical and/or theoretical components focused on promoting PA through increasing physical self‐esteem and self‐efficacy, reducing time spent in small‐screen recreation on weekends, decreasing sweetened beverage consumption, increasing fruit consumption and the acquisition and practice of self‐regulatory behaviours such as goal‐setting and time management, and identifying and overcoming barriers. Behaviour modification techniques (e.g. group goals converting time spent in PA to kilometres to reach a specified destination) and incentives were used. The practical component included modified games and activities. The researcher primarily facilitated the intervention with staff and parent involvement. A Program Champion (PE teacher) liaised with School Executive and other staff to promote the programme within the school and to assist with logistical requirements. Grade 11 students peer‐facilitated lunchtime sessions based on their potential to be positive role models and had 1, 20‐minute training session. Parents were emailed 6 newsletters throughout, informing them of programme content, motivating them, and suggesting strategies to engage the family in healthy behaviours, creating a stronger connection between parents and the school Comparator: participated in 16 × 60‐minute curricular PA sessions at the same time as the intervention group, with a school PE teacher guiding the control group Duration of intervention: 16 weeks Duration of follow‐up: 16 weeks Number of schools: 1 Theoretical framework: social cognitive theory
Outcomes	PA duration BMI
Study registration	—
Publication details	Language of publication: English Funding: other funding (the broader intervention school community partly funded the study) Publication status: peer‐reviewed journal
Stated aim for study	"The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility, acceptability and potential efficacy of a multifaceted secondary school‐based program (the Fitness Improvement Lifestyle Awareness Program) among adolescent boys with low cardiorespiratory fitness"
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Comment: participants were randomised, using a computer‐based number‐producing algorithm, to either intervention or active comparison group
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Comment: all participants were allocated at a single point in time following recruitment, so at time of recruitment, allocation was not known
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Comment: not described
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote from publication: “trained independent assessors, blind to group allocation, conducted the measurements” (Peralta 2009, p538)
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Anthropometrics, Fitness	Low risk	Comment: outcome data complete
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Physical activity and sedentary time	Low risk	Comment: outcome data complete
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: no protocol published; cannot assess