Vazou Spyridoula, Webster Collin A, Stewart Gregory, Candal Priscila, Egan Cate A, Pennell Adam, Russ Laura B
Department of Kinesiology, Iowa State University, 534 Wallace Road, Ames, IA, 50011, USA.
Department of Physical Education, University of South Carolina, 1300 Wheat Street, Columbia, SC, 29208, USA.
Sports Med Open. 2020 Jan 6;6(1):1. doi: 10.1186/s40798-019-0218-8.
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Movement integration (MI) involves infusing physical activity into normal classroom time. A wide range of MI interventions have succeeded in increasing children's participation in physical activity. However, no previous research has attempted to unpack the various MI intervention approaches. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically review, qualitatively analyze, and develop a typology of MI interventions conducted in primary/elementary school settings.
SUBJECTS/METHODS: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to identify published MI interventions. Irrelevant records were removed first by title, then by abstract, and finally by full texts of articles, resulting in 72 studies being retained for qualitative analysis. A deductive approach, using previous MI research as an a priori analytic framework, alongside inductive techniques were used to analyze the data.
Four types of MI interventions were identified and labeled based on their design: student-driven, teacher-driven, researcher-teacher collaboration, and researcher-driven. Each type was further refined based on the MI strategies (movement breaks, active lessons, other: opening activity, transitions, reward, awareness), the level of intrapersonal and institutional support (training, resources), and the delivery (dose, intensity, type, fidelity). Nearly half of the interventions were researcher-driven, which may undermine the sustainability of MI as a routine practice by teachers in schools. An imbalance is evident on the MI strategies, with transitions, opening and awareness activities, and rewards being limitedly studied. Delivery should be further examined with a strong focus on reporting fidelity.
There are distinct approaches that are most often employed to promote the use of MI and these approaches may often lack a minimum standard for reporting MI intervention details. This typology may be useful to effectively translate the evidence into practice in real-life settings to better understand and study MI interventions.
背景/目的:运动整合(MI)涉及将体育活动融入正常课堂时间。广泛的运动整合干预措施已成功提高了儿童参与体育活动的程度。然而,以前没有研究试图剖析各种运动整合干预方法。因此,本研究旨在系统回顾、定性分析并建立在小学环境中进行的运动整合干预的类型学。
受试者/方法:遵循系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南来识别已发表的运动整合干预措施。首先通过标题,然后通过摘要,最后通过文章全文删除无关记录,最终保留72项研究进行定性分析。采用演绎法,以前期运动整合研究作为先验分析框架,并结合归纳技术对数据进行分析。
根据设计确定并标记了四种类型的运动整合干预措施:学生驱动型、教师驱动型、研究者-教师合作型和研究者驱动型。每种类型根据运动整合策略(运动休息、活动课、其他:开场活动、过渡、奖励、意识)、个人和机构支持水平(培训、资源)以及实施方式(剂量、强度、类型、保真度)进一步细化。近一半的干预措施是研究者驱动型,这可能会破坏运动整合作为学校教师常规做法的可持续性。运动整合策略存在明显失衡,过渡、开场和意识活动以及奖励方面的研究有限。应进一步研究实施方式,重点关注报告保真度。
促进运动整合使用的方法通常有明显不同,并且这些方法可能常常缺乏报告运动整合干预细节的最低标准。这种类型学可能有助于在现实环境中有效地将证据转化为实践,以更好地理解和研究运动整合干预措施。