Allied Health and Human Performance, Alliance for Research in Exercise Nutrition and Activity (ARENA), University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Allied Health and Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Sep 27;9(9):CD013380. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013380.pub2.
BACKGROUND: Insufficient physical activity is one of four primary risk factors for non-communicable diseases such as stroke, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer and chronic lung disease. As few as one in five children aged 5 to 17 years have the physical activity recommended for health benefits. The outside-school hours period contributes around 30% of children's daily physical activity and presents a key opportunity for children to increase their physical activity. Testing the effects of interventions in outside-school hours childcare settings is required to assess the potential to increase physical activity and reduce disease burden. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and associated adverse events of interventions designed to increase physical activity in children aged 4 to 12 years in outside-school hours childcare settings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC and SportsDISCUS to identify eligible trials on 18 August 2020. We searched two databases, three trial registries, reference lists of included trials and handsearched two physical activity journals in August 2020. We contacted first and senior authors on articles identified for inclusion for ongoing or unpublished potentially relevant trials in August 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials, including cluster-randomised controlled trials, of any intervention primarily aimed at increasing physical activity in children aged 4 to 12 years in outside-school hours childcare settings compared to usual care. To be eligible, the interventions must have been delivered in the context of an existing outside-school hours childcare setting (i.e. childcare that was available consistently throughout the school week/year), and not set up in the after-school period for the purpose of research. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts of identified papers with discrepancies resolved via a consensus discussion. A third review author was not required to resolve disagreements. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included trials with discrepancies resolved via a consensus discussion; a third review author was not required to resolve disagreements. For continuous measures of physical activity, we reported the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in random-effects models using the generic inverse variance method for each outcome. For continuous measures, when studies used different scales to measure the same outcome, we used standardised mean differences (SMDs). We conducted assessments of risk of bias of all outcomes and evaluated the certainty of evidence (GRADE approach) using standard Cochrane procedures. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine trials with 4458 participants. Five trials examined the effectiveness of staff-based interventions to change practice in the outside-school hours childcare setting (e.g. change in programming, activities offered by staff, staff facilitation/training). Two trials examined the effectiveness of staff- and parent-based interventions (e.g. parent newsletters/telephone calls/messages or parent tool-kits in addition to staff-based interventions), one trial assessed staff- and child-based intervention (e.g. children had home activities to emphasise physical activity education learnt during outside-school hours childcare sessions in addition to staff-based interventions) and one trial assessed child-only based intervention (i.e. only children were targeted). We judged two trials as free from high risk of bias across all domains. Of those studies at high risk of bias, it was across domains of randomisation process, missing outcome data and measurement of the outcome. There was low-certainty evidence that physical activity interventions may have little to no effect on total daily moderate-to-vigorous physical activity compared to no intervention (MD 1.7 minutes, 95% CI -0.42 to 3.82; P = 0.12; 6 trials; 3042 children). We were unable to pool data on proportion of the OSHC session spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in a meta-analysis. Both trials showed an increase in proportion of session spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (moderate-certainty evidence) from 4% to 7.3% of session time; however, only one trial was statistically significant. There was low-certainty evidence that physical activity interventions may lead to little to no reduction in body mass index (BMI) as a measure of cardiovascular health, compared to no intervention (SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.10; P = 0.22; 4 trials, 1684 children). Physical activity interventions that were delivered online were more cost-effective than in person. Combined results suggest that staff-and-parent and staff-and-child-based interventions may lead to a small increase in overall daily physical activity and a small reduction or no difference in BMI. Process evaluation was assessed differently by four of the included studies, with two studies reporting improvements in physical activity practices, one reporting high programme satisfaction and one high programme fidelity. The certainty of the evidence for these outcomes was low to moderate. Finally, there was very low-certainty evidence that physical activity interventions in outside-school hours childcare settings may increase cardiovascular fitness. No trials reported on quality of life or adverse outcomes. Trials reported funding from local government health grants or charitable funds; no trials reported industry funding. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although the review included nine trials, the evidence for how to increase children's physical activity in outside-school hours care settings remains limited, both in terms of certainty of evidence and magnitude of the effect. Of the types of interventions identified, when assessed using GRADE there was low-certainty evidence that multi-component interventions, with a specific physical activity goal may have a small increase in daily moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and a slight reduction in BMI. There was very low-certainty evidence that interventions increase cardiovascular fitness. By contrast there was moderate-certainty evidence that interventions were effective for increasing proportion of time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, and online training is cost-effective.
背景:体力活动不足是导致非传染性疾病的四个主要危险因素之一,如中风、心脏病、2 型糖尿病、癌症和慢性肺部疾病。只有五分之一的 5 至 17 岁儿童进行了有益于健康的体力活动。校外时间占儿童每日体力活动的 30%左右,是增加儿童体力活动的关键机会。需要测试校外儿童保育环境中的干预措施的效果,以评估增加体力活动和减少疾病负担的潜力。
目的:评估旨在增加 4 至 12 岁儿童校外儿童保育环境中体力活动的干预措施的有效性、成本效益和相关不良事件。
检索方法:我们于 2020 年 8 月 18 日在 CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase、ERIC 和 SportsDISCUS 中检索了合格试验。我们还在 2020 年 8 月检索了两个数据库、三个试验注册处、纳入试验的参考文献列表以及两份专门研究体力活动的期刊,并联系了文章中确定的正在进行或未发表的可能相关试验的第一作者和资深作者。
纳入标准:我们纳入了随机对照试验,包括群组随机对照试验,研究的是任何主要旨在增加校外儿童保育环境中 4 至 12 岁儿童体力活动的干预措施,与常规护理相比。干预措施必须在现有的校外儿童保育环境中实施(即,整个学年/周都可以使用的儿童保育),而不是为了研究目的在课后时段设立。两名综述作者独立筛选了确定的论文的标题和摘要,如果存在分歧,则通过共识讨论解决;第三名综述作者无需解决分歧。
数据收集和分析:两名综述作者独立提取数据,并通过共识讨论解决了纳入试验的偏倚风险评估;第三名综述作者无需解决分歧。对于体力活动的连续测量指标,我们在随机效应模型中报告了每种结局的均数差(MD)及其 95%置信区间(CI),使用通用逆方差法。对于连续测量指标,如果研究使用不同的量表来测量相同的结局,我们使用标准化均数差(SMD)。我们对所有结局的偏倚风险进行评估,并使用标准的 Cochrane 程序评估证据的确定性(GRADE 方法)。
主要结果:我们纳入了 9 项试验,共 4458 名参与者。五项试验检验了工作人员为改变校外儿童保育环境中的实践而进行的干预措施的有效性(例如,改变编程、工作人员提供的活动、工作人员促进/培训)。两项试验检验了工作人员和家长为基础的干预措施的有效性(例如,除了工作人员为基础的干预措施之外,家长的通讯/电话/信息或家长工具包),一项试验评估了工作人员和儿童为基础的干预措施(例如,除了工作人员为基础的干预措施之外,儿童在家中进行活动,以强调在课外时间儿童保育会议上学到的体力活动教育),一项试验评估了儿童为基础的干预措施(即,仅针对儿童)。我们判断其中两项试验在所有领域均无高偏倚风险。在那些高偏倚风险的研究中,偏倚风险存在于随机过程、缺失结局数据和结局测量领域。低确定性证据表明,与无干预相比,体力活动干预措施对总每日适度至剧烈体力活动可能没有影响(MD 1.7 分钟,95%CI-0.42 至 3.82;P = 0.12;6 项试验;3042 名儿童)。我们无法对纳入的 9 项试验进行荟萃分析,以汇总校外儿童保育时段中中高强度体力活动所占比例的数据。两项试验都显示出,中高强度体力活动所占比例从 4%增加到 7.3%(中度确定性证据);然而,只有一项试验具有统计学意义。低确定性证据表明,与无干预相比,体力活动干预措施可能对心血管健康的衡量指标体重指数(BMI)没有降低或降低很少(SMD-0.17,95%CI-0.44 至 0.10;P = 0.22;4 项试验,1684 名儿童)。在线进行的体力活动干预措施比面对面进行的干预措施更具成本效益。综合结果表明,工作人员和家长为基础以及工作人员和儿童为基础的干预措施可能会导致总体日常体力活动略有增加,以及 BMI 略有降低或没有差异。四项纳入研究中的四项评估了综合结果的过程评估,其中两项研究报告了体力活动实践的改善,一项研究报告了高计划满意度,一项研究报告了高计划保真度。这些结局的证据确定性为低到中度。最后,低确定性证据表明,校外儿童保育环境中的体力活动干预措施可能会提高心血管健康。没有试验报告生活质量或不良结局。试验报告的资金来自地方政府卫生拨款或慈善基金;没有试验报告工业资金。
作者结论:尽管该综述包括了 9 项试验,但在如何提高校外儿童保育环境中儿童的体力活动方面,证据仍然有限,无论是证据确定性还是效果大小方面都是如此。在所确定的干预类型中,使用 GRADE 评估,具有特定体力活动目标的多组分干预措施可能会适度增加每日适度至剧烈体力活动,略微降低 BMI。有非常低确定性证据表明干预措施会增加心血管适应性。相比之下,有中度确定性证据表明干预措施对增加中高强度体力活动所占比例有效,并且在线培训具有成本效益。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-9-27
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-9-23
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-5-8
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025-6-11
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-5-17
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-1-17
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-8-15
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-11-26
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-6-29
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-12-20
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2025-8-25
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2025-5-29
Front Psychol. 2023-3-29