Norris Emma, Hamer Mark, Stamatakis Emmanuel
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom; National Center for Sport and Exercise Medicine, School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, United Kingdom.
J Pediatr. 2016 May;172:40-46.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.02.001. Epub 2016 Mar 3.
To assess the quality of evidence for the effects of school active video game (AVG) use on physical activity and health outcomes.
Online databases (ERIC, PsycINFO, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science) and gray literature were searched. Inclusion criteria were the use of AVGs in school settings as an intervention; assessment of at least 1 health or physical activity outcome; and comparison of outcomes with either a control group or comparison phase. Studies featuring AVGs within complex interventions were excluded. Study quality was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool.
Twenty-two reports were identified: 11 assessed physical activity outcomes only, 5 assessed motor skill outcomes only, and 6 assessed both physical activity and health outcomes. Nine out of 14 studies found greater physical activity in AVG sessions compared with controls; mostly assessed by objective measures in school time only. Motor skills were found to improve with AVGs vs controls in all studies but not compared with other motor skill interventions. Effects of AVGs on body composition were mixed. Study quality was low in 16 studies and moderate in the remaining 6, with insufficient detail given on blinding, participation rates, and confounding variables.
There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend AVGs as efficacious health interventions within schools. Higher quality AVG research utilizing randomized controlled trial designs, larger sample sizes, and validated activity measurements beyond the school day is needed.
评估学校使用主动式电子游戏(AVG)对身体活动和健康结果影响的证据质量。
检索了在线数据库(教育资源信息中心、心理学文摘数据库、医学期刊数据库、体育文献数据库和科学引文索引数据库)以及灰色文献。纳入标准为在学校环境中使用AVG作为干预措施;评估至少一项健康或身体活动结果;并将结果与对照组或比较阶段进行比较。排除复杂干预措施中包含AVG的研究。使用有效公共卫生实践项目工具评估研究质量。
共识别出22份报告:11份仅评估了身体活动结果,5份仅评估了运动技能结果,6份同时评估了身体活动和健康结果。14项研究中有9项发现,与对照组相比,AVG课程中的身体活动更多;大多仅通过在校期间的客观测量进行评估。在所有研究中,与对照组相比,AVG能提高运动技能,但未与其他运动技能干预措施进行比较。AVG对身体成分的影响不一。16项研究的质量较低,其余6项为中等质量,在盲法、参与率和混杂变量方面给出的细节不足。
目前没有足够的证据推荐将AVG作为学校内有效的健康干预措施。需要开展更高质量的AVG研究,采用随机对照试验设计、更大的样本量,并在学校日之外进行经过验证的活动测量。