Contardo Ayala Ana María, Parker Kate, Mazzoli Emiliano, Lander Natalie, Ridgers Nicola D, Timperio Anna, Lubans David R, Abbott Gavin, Koorts Harriet, Salmon Jo
Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Sports Med Open. 2024 Mar 13;10(1):25. doi: 10.1186/s40798-024-00688-7.
Globally, just one in five adolescents meet physical activity guidelines and three-quarters of the school day is spent sitting. It is unclear which types of school-based interventions strategies increase physical activity and reduce sedentary time among adolescents, or how these interventions are implemented influences their effectiveness.
The three aims of our systematic review were to (a) identify intervention strategies used within secondary school settings to improve students' movement behaviours throughout school-based initiatives, delivered at or by the school; (b) determine the overall effect of the interventions (meta-analysis) on physical activity (all intensities), sedentary time, cognitive/academic, physical health and/or psychological outcomes; and (c) describe factors related to intervention implementation.
Searches were conducted in MEDLINE complete, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, APA PsycINFO, and ERIC in January 2023 for studies that (a) included high school-aged adolescents; (b) involved a school-based intervention to increase physical activity and/or decrease sedentary time; and (c) were published in English. Reported effects were pooled in meta-analyses where sufficient data were obtained.
Eighty-five articles, representing 61 interventions, met the inclusion criteria, with 23 unique intervention strategies used. Interventions that involved whole-school approaches (i.e., physical activity sessions, environmental modifications, teacher training, peer support and/or educational resources) were favourably associated with most of the outcomes. The meta-analyses showed: (a) non-significant effects for sedentary time (Standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.02; 95%CI, -0.14, 0.11), physical activity at all intensities (light: SMD= -0.01; 95%CI, -0.08, 0.05; moderate: SMD = 0.06; 95%CI, -0.09, 0.22; vigorous: SMD = 0.08; 95%CI, -0.02, 0.18; moderate-to-vigorous: SMD = 0.05; 95%CI, -0.01, 0.12) and waist circumference (SMD = 0.09; 95%CI, -0.03, 0.21), and (b) a small statistically significant decrease in body mass index (SMD= -0.09, 95%CI -0.16, -0.0). Factors related to intervention implementation were reported in 51% of the articles.
While some intervention approaches demonstrated promise, small or null effects were found in meta-analyses. Future school-based interventions should utilize a whole-school approach designed to increase adolescents' activity across the day. Consistent reporting of implementation will increase understanding of how interventions are adopted, implemented and sustained.
PROSPERO (CRD42020169988).
在全球范围内,只有五分之一的青少年达到体育活动指南的要求,并且学生在校时间的四分之三都用于久坐。目前尚不清楚哪些类型的校内干预策略能够增加青少年的体育活动并减少久坐时间,或者这些干预措施的实施方式如何影响其效果。
我们系统评价的三个目的是:(a) 确定中学环境中用于改善学生在学校开展的各项活动中的运动行为的干预策略,这些活动由学校提供或在学校开展;(b) 确定干预措施(荟萃分析)对体育活动(所有强度)、久坐时间、认知/学业、身体健康和/或心理结果的总体影响;(c) 描述与干预实施相关的因素。
2023年1月在MEDLINE complete、EMBASE、CINAHL、SPORTDiscus、APA PsycINFO和ERIC中进行检索,查找符合以下条件的研究:(a) 纳入高中生年龄的青少年;(b) 涉及一项旨在增加体育活动和/或减少久坐时间的校内干预措施;(c) 以英文发表。在获得足够数据的情况下,将报告的效应合并进行荟萃分析。
85篇文章代表61项干预措施符合纳入标准,共使用了23种独特的干预策略。涉及全校方法(即体育活动课程、环境改造、教师培训、同伴支持和/或教育资源)的干预措施与大多数结果呈正相关。荟萃分析显示:(a) 久坐时间(标准化均数差[SMD]=-0.02;95%置信区间,-0.14,0.11)、所有强度的体育活动(轻度:SMD=-0.01;95%置信区间,-0.08,0.05;中度:SMD=0.06;95%置信区间,-0.09,0.22;剧烈:SMD=0.08;95%置信区间,-0.02,0.18;中度至剧烈:SMD=0.05;95%置信区间,-0.01,0.12)和腰围(SMD=0.09;95%置信区间,-0.03,0.21)无显著影响;(b) 体重指数有小幅统计学显著下降(SMD=-0.09,95%置信区间-0.16,-0.0)。51%的文章报告了与干预实施相关的因素。
虽然一些干预方法显示出前景,但荟萃分析中发现效应较小或无效应。未来基于学校的干预措施应采用全校方法,旨在增加青少年全天的活动量。对实施情况进行一致的报告将增进对干预措施如何采用、实施和维持的理解。
PROSPERO(CRD42020169988)