Original ResearchMapping and evaluation of physical activity interventions for school-aged children
Introduction
Worrying data shows that around 28% of children aged 2–15 years are now classified as either overweight or obese in England.1 Aside from genetic factors,2 environmental causes appear central to the explanation of the obesity pandemic.3, 4 Indeed, 80% of children aged 13–15 years fail to meet public health guidelines of 60 min of physical activity (PA) per day according to data obtained from 105 countries.5 Major efforts have been made to increase the PA of children nationally, however the capacity of current provision as an effective means to combat childhood obesity remains under question, warranting the need for extensive evaluation work.6 While it is clear that children should be active across all aspects of daily life, school-based PA interventions provide a common focal point for PA based research and policy.6, 7, 8, 9, 10 The justification for such includes: i) children spend a considerable amount of their day in school, thus school-based interventions are expected to reach lots children quickly; ii) school settings harbour powerful social networks, improving the circulation of key trends and messages; iii) schools are required to implement PE as part of the curriculum; and iv) interventions align well a healthy schools ethos, consequently once adopted into a school, interventions tend to be maintained and institutionalised for extended periods of time.6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Thus, in order to evaluate effective PA provision offered to children, it is clear that schools provide a likely environment in which PA provision may be easily found.
Briefly, it is important to first recap what constitutes PA and also contexts that influence participation. Physical activity can be defined as any bodily movement produced by skeletal muscle that requires energy expenditure.11 Physical activity encompasses sport as a subcategory, where sport is further classified by planned, structured, repetitive and competitive elements.11 It is apparent that participation in PA is not consistent across all contexts. Evidence highlights various key correlates of PA, – i.e. sex, age, ethnicity, socio-economic status, parental support and access to facilities etc, – emphasising the need to tailor interventions to specific populations and environments.12
To date, systematic reviews and meta-analyses derived from almost three decades of school-based PA research provide weak and equivocal evidence for the positive impact of interventions to increase PA in children.6, 7, 8, 9, 10 This is despite the potential for even small effect sizes in PA to positively impact on the health of children. Several concerns are consistently presented across such reviews: a) research has struggled to highlight the contextually sensitive attributes that define successful schools-based interventions, along with their specific beneficiaries;9 b) poor compatibility of rigid scientific methodology and evaluation techniques to address a societally complex issue;13, 14 and c) an ongoing search for a ‘one size fits all’ or ‘silver bullet’ solution.14, 15 Brown and colleagues argue that these concerns must be first addressed in order to better justify the wisdom of assigning scarce government finance to future PA provision.7 Furthermore, while an extensive number of reviews in this area implies that an abundance of PA initiatives currently operate in UK schools, there is little evidence with regards to the definitive structure, organisation and impact of current PA interventions. This may have resulted from repeated organisational restructuring of national PA initiatives by governments in recent years, creating considerable mismatch and fragmentation between literature and applied practice.
A clear rationale is therefore set for a comprehensive and contextually sensitive evaluation approach in order to inform policy makers of what to commission, where and for whom. In order to achieve this, the focus of such an approach should be two-fold. Firstly, to systematically map physical activity provision currently available to children across schools, and secondly to critically assess effective and ineffective practice currently offered in line with research literature.9 Thus, to address the initial point the current paper presents a pilot study that aimed to systematically map the existence of PA interventions currently available within a sub-sample of Southampton schools, along with any potential barriers to their implementation. This pilot work would provide a better understanding of the current PA landscape, better informing the construction and methodology of future extensive monitoring and evaluation work.
Section snippets
Sample
Following full ethical approval by the Southampton Solent University Ethics Board, invitation to participate within the study was advertised to all Southampton junior, primary and secondary schools via direct email, the head teacher's e-bulletin and annual conference (via Southampton City Council). Thirteen of fifty-six potential schools responded (23%). Furthermore, applied health practitioners in the Southampton area required prioritisation of schools hosting the greatest number of students
PA provision available in Southampton schools
The research team were able to identify only three formal PA specific interventions currently operating across the nine high risk schools, and a hand full of informal interventions, i.e. pedometer challenges, guest speakers, playground equipment (formality defined by activities undertaken either frequently/infrequently and/or in a organised/unorganised manner). Formal interventions were: a) ‘Real PE’, a countywide program, aiming to develop and deliver a PA and fundamental movement skills
Discussion
This study aimed to systematically map the structure of PA interventions currently available within a sub-sample of Southampton schools, along with any potential barriers to their implementation. In stark contrast to the extensive literature base detailing numerous PA interventions in school-aged children, our data suggest that a very small amount of such knowledge appears to translate into PA provision offered in ‘at risk’ Southampton schools. The research team were able to identify very few
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge Julia Tucker-Blackford (Southampton Solent University) and Pawan Lall (Southampton City Council) for providing suggestions to enhance the study design.
Ethical approval
Ethical approval to undertake this work was granted by the ethics board of the School of Sport, Health and Social Sciences at Southampton Solent University. Informed consent was obtained from all participating individuals prior to data collection.
Funding
The authors declare that no funding was received for this research.
Competing interests
The
References (18)
- et al.
Evidence for a strong genetic influence on childhood adiposity despite the force of the obesogenic environment
Am J Clin Nutr
(2008) - et al.
Global physical activity levels: surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects
Lancet
(2012) - et al.
Developing an evidence-based guide to community preventive services—methods
Am J Prev Med
(2000) Health survey for England
(2013)- et al.
The evolution of obesity
(2013) - et al.
Emerging adulthood and college-aged youth: an overlooked age for weight-related behavior change
Obesity
(2008) - et al.
School-based physical activity programs for promoting physical activity and fitness in children and adolescents aged 6 to 18
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
(2013) - et al.
Systematic review of school-based interventions that focus on changing dietary intake and physical activity levels to prevent childhood obesity: an update to the obesity guidance produced by the national institute for health and clinical excellence
Obes Rev
(2009) - et al.
Objectively measured physical activity and obesity prevention in children, adolescents and adults: a systematic review of prospective studies
Obes Rev
(2011)
Cited by (7)
Evaluation of practice to promote physical activity in schools in a unitary authority in England
2020, Public HealthCitation Excerpt :The relatively scarce research related to the PESP has emphasised use of external coaches at the expense of physical education and proposes this risks development of physical competencies and healthy behaviours towards physical activity.17,18 In a small-scale survey of schools in Southampton, Arnold et al.19 suggested the inability to successfully differentiate between sport and physical activity may present a further obstacle to the successful uptake of physical activity in the future. The purpose of this study was therefore to explore what actually happens in relation to physical activity promotion in primary and junior schools within one unitary authority and to relate this to PHE promising principles of practice to promote physical activity in schools.
A realist case study inquiry of English primary school physical activity initiatives
2023, Sport, Education and SocietyUse of economic evidence when prioritising public health interventions in schools: A qualitative study with school staff
2020, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthEducator perspectives on factors influencing children's school-based physical activity
2019, Health Promotion InternationalPotential safety risks in schools: Ensuring the safety of our precious ones
2017, Annals of Tropical Medicine and Public Health