To test effectiveness of Active School Day policy implementation on physical activity outcomes and estimate school-level implementation costs.
Design.
The design of the study was quasi-experimental (pretest–posttest matched controls).
Setting.
The study took place in six elementary schools with three matched pairs in Boston, Massachusetts, February to June 2011.
Subjects.
Subjects were 455 consenting fourth- and fifth-grade students among 467 eligible.
Intervention.
Active School Day policy implementation provided equipment, curricular materials, and training to physical educators and school wellness champions to promote 150 weekly minutes of quality physical education, recess, and physical activity integrated into classrooms.
Measures.
Accelerometer assessments of accumulated minutes and bouts of moderate, vigorous, and sedentary physical activity on 5 school days before and after implementation were used. Implementation costs were collected by record review and reported resource utilization.
Analysis.
Analysis was conducted using multivariate mixed models estimated with repeated measures of daily physical activity, adjusted for student demographics and other confounding and design/clustering variables.
Results.
Accelerometer data were provided by 201 intervention and 192 comparison students for an average of 4 days per period (84% response). During school time, students in intervention schools demonstrated greater increases in minutes per day of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (3.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.8–6.0; p < .001) and vigorous physical activity (1.8, 95% CI.7–3.0; p < .001), and greater decreases in minutes per day of sedentary time (–10.6, 95% CI—15.3– −5.8; p < .001) than controls. Ongoing annual implementation costs totaled $4,523/school ($14/student).
Conclusion.
Active School Day implementation increased student moderate-to-vigorous physical activity levels by 24% and decreased sedentary time during school at modest cost.
Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee. Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Report, 2008. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2008.
2.
BiddleSJHAsareM. Physical activity and mental health in children and adolescents: A review of reviews. Br J Sports Med.2011;45:886–895.
3.
BaumanAEReisRSSallisJF. Correlates of physical activity: Why are some people physically active and others not?Lancet. 2012;380:258–271.
4.
DavisCLTomporowskiPDMcDowellJE. Exercise improves executive function and achievement and alters brain activation in overweight children: A randomized, controlled trial. Health Psychol. 2011;30:91–98.
5.
DonnellyJELambourneK. Classroom-based physical activity, cognition, and academic achievement. Prev Med.2011;52(suppl):S36–S42.
6.
EfratM. The relationship between low-income and minority children's physical activity and academic-related outcomes: A review of the literature. Health Educ Behav. 2011;38:441–451.
7.
MaharMT. Impact of short bouts of physical activity on attention-to-task in elementary school children. Prev Med.2011;52(suppl):S60–S64.
8.
RasberryCNLeeSMRobinL. The association between school-based physical activity, including physical education, and academic performance: A systematic review of the literature. Prev Med.2011;52(suppl):S10–S20.
9.
US Department of Health and Human Services. 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2008.
10.
TroianoRBerriganDDoddK. Physical activity in the United States measured by accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40:181–188.
11.
Institute of Medicine. Fitness Measures and Health Outcomes in Youth. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2012.
12.
National Association for Sport and Physical Education. Comprehensive School Physical Activity Programs [Position statement]. Reston, Va: Comprehensive School Physical Activity Programs Task Force, National Association for Sport and Physical Education; 2008.
13.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. School health guidelines to promote healthy eating and physical activity. MMWR. 2011;60:1–76.
14.
MurrayRRamstetterCDevoreC. The crucial role of recess in school. Pediatrics. 2013;131:183–188.
15.
McCambridgeTMBernhardtDTBrennerJS. Active healthy living: Prevention of childhood obesity through increased physical activity. Pediatrics. 2006;117:1834–1842.
16.
Institute of Medicine. Educating the Student Body: Taking Physical Activity and Physical Education to School. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2013.
17.
Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report Subcommittee of the President's Council on Fitness, Sports & Nutrition. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report: Strategies to Increase Physical Activity Among Youth. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2012.
18.
van SluijsEMFMcMinnAMGriffinS. Effectiveness of interventions to promote physical activity in children and adolescents: Systematic review of controlled trials. BMJ. 2007;335:703–707.
19.
DoakCMVisscherTLSRendersCMSeidellJC. The prevention of overweight and obesity in children and adolescents: A review of interventions and programmes. Obes Rev.2006;7:111–136.
20.
FlodmarkCEMarcusCBrittonM. Interventions to prevent obesity in children and adolescents: A systematic literature review. Int J Obes.2006;30:579–589.
21.
FlynnMATMcNeilDAMaloffB. Reducing obesity and related chronic disease risk in children and youth: A synthesis of evidence with “best practice” recommendations. Obes Rev.2006;7:7–66.
22.
KahnEBRamseyLTBrownsonRC. The effectiveness of interventions to increase physical activity—a systematic review. Am J Prev Med.2002;22:73–108.
23.
SalmonJBoothMLPhongsavanPMurphyNTimperioA. Promoting physical activity participation among children and adolescents. Epidemiol Rev.2007;29:144–159.
24.
DobbinsMDe CorbyKRobesonP. School-based physical activity programs for promoting physical activity and fitness in children and adolescents aged 6–18. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev.2009; Jan 2: CD007651.
25.
DemetriouYHonerO. Physical activity interventions in the school setting: A systematic review. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2012;13:186–196.
26.
McKenzieTLNaderPRStrikmillerPK. School physical education: Effect of the Child and Adolescent Trial for Cardiovascular Health. Prev Med.1996;25:423–431.
27.
SallisJFMcKenzieTLAlcarazJE. The effects of a 2-year physical education program (SPARK) on physical activity and fitness in elementary school students. Sports, Play and Active Recreation for Kids. Am J Public Health. 1997;87:1328–1334.
28.
LuepkerRVPerryCLMcKinlaySM. Outcomes of a field trial to improve children's dietary patterns and physical activity—The Child and Adolescent Trial for Cardiovascular Health (CATCH). JAMA. 1996;275:768–776.
29.
KelderSHSpringerASBarrosoCS. Implementation of Texas Senate Bill 19 to increase physical activity in elementary schools. J Public Health Policy. 2009;30(suppl):S221–S247.
30.
BarrosoCSKelderSHSpringerAE. Senate Bill 42: Implementation and impact on physical activity in middle schools. J Adolescent Health. 2009;45(suppl):S82–S90.
31.
RogersEM. Diffusion of Innovations. 3rd ed.New York, NY: The Free Press; 1983.
32.
GoodmanRStecklerA. A model for the institutionalization of health promotion programs. Fam Community Health. 1989;11:63–78.
33.
BunnellRO'NeilDSolerR. Fifty communities Putting Prevention to Work: Accelerating chronic disease prevention through policy, systems and environmental change. J Community Health. 2012;37:1081–1090.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. School/District Profiles, 2010–2011. Available at: http://profiles.doe.mass.edu. Accessed March 27, 2013.
36.
FreedsonPPoberDJanzKF. Calibration of accelerometer output for children. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37(suppl 11):S523–S530.
37.
TrostSGLoprinziPDMooreRPfeifferKA. Comparison of accelerometer cut points for predicting activity intensity in youth. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43:1360–1368.
38.
MagnussonKTSigurgeirssonISveinssonTJohannssonE. Assessment of a two-year school-based physical activity intervention among 7–9-year-old children. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011;8:138
Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of Labor. Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2011. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/oes/. Accessed October 1, 2012.
42.
SingerJDWillettJB. Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis: Modeling Change and Event Occurrence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2003.
43.
FitzmauriceGMLairdNMWareJH. Applied Longitudinal Analysis. 2nd ed.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons; 2011.
44.
SingerJD. Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growth models. J Educ Behav Stat.1998;24:323–355.
45.
FeitoYBassettDRThompsonDL. Evaluation of activity monitors in controlled and free-living environments. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44:733–741.
46.
KozeySLStaudenmayerJWTroianoRPFreedsonPS. Comparison of the ActiGraph 7164 and the ActiGraph GT1M during self-paced locomotion. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010;42:971–976.
47.
RothneyMPApkerGASongYNChenKY. Comparing the performance of three generations of ActiGraph accelerometers. J Applied Physiol. 2008;105:1091–1097.
48.
Ried-LarsenMBrondJCBrageS. Mechanical and free living comparisons of four generations of the Actigraph activity monitor. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9:13.
49.
TanhaTTornbergABWollmerPDenckerM. Head-to-head comparison between Actigraph 7164 and GT1M accelerometers in adolescents. Clin Physiol Funct I.2013;33(2):162–165.
50.
CorderKBrageSRamachandranA. Comparison of two Actigraph models for assessing free-living physical activity in Indian adolescents. J Sport Sci.2007;25:1607–1611.
51.
KaminskyLAOzemekC. A comparison of the Actigraph GT1M and GT3X accelerometers under standardized and free-living conditions. Physiol Meas. 2012;33:1869–1876.
52.
VanhelstJMikulovicJBui-XuanG. Comparison of two ActiGraph accelerometer generations in the assessment of physical activity in free living conditions. BMC Res Notes. 2012;5:187.
53.
SasakiJEJohnDFreedsonPS. Validation and comparison of ActiGraph activity monitors. J Sci Med Sport. 2011;14:411–416.
54.
CainKLConwayTLAdamsMA. Comparison of older and newer generations of ActiGraph accelerometers with the normal filter and the low frequency extension. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013;10:51.
55.
CarterRMoodieMMarkwickA. Assessing Cost-Effectiveness in Obesity (ACE-Obesity): An overview of the ACE approach, economic methods and cost results. BMC Public Health. 2009;9:419.
56.
EngelenLBundyACNaughtonG. Increasing physical activity in young primary school children—it's child's play: A cluster randomized controlled trial. Prev Med.2013;56:319–325.
57.
MetcalfBHenleyWWilkinT. Effectiveness of intervention on physical activity of children: Systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials with objectively measured outcomes (EarlyBird 54). BMJ. 2012;345:e588.
58.
DumithSCGiganteDPDominguesMRKohlHW. Physical activity change during adolescence: A systematic review and a pooled analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40:685–698.
59.
TaylorRWMcAuleyKABarbezatW. APPLE Project: 2-y findings of a community-based obesity prevention program in primary school-age children. Am J Clin Nutr.2007;86:735–742.
60.
CarsonR. Certification and duties of a director of physical activity. JOPERD: Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance. 2012;83(6):16–29.
SlingerlandMBorghoutsL. Direct and indirect influence of physical education-based interventions on physical activity: A review. J Phys Act Health. 2011;8:866–878.
63.
Ekblom-BakEHelleniusMLEkblomB. Are we facing a new paradigm of inactivity physiology?Brit J Sport Med.2010;44:834–835.
64.
van GriekenAEzendamNPMPaulisWD. Primary prevention of overweight in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of interventions aiming to decrease sedentary behaviour. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9:11.
65.
HealyGNMatthewsCEDunstanDW. Sedentary time and cardio-metabolic biomarkers in US adults: NHANES 2003–06. European Heart Journal. 2011;32:590–597.
66.
SalmonJTremblayMSMarshallSJHumeC. Health risks, correlates, and interventions to reduce sedentary behavior in young people. Am J Prev Med.2011;41(2):197–206.
67.
ReillyJJPenprazeVHislopJ. Objective measurement of physical activity and sedentary behaviour: Review with new data. Arch DisChild. 2008;93:614–619.
68.
AtkinAJGorelyTClemesSA. Methods of measurement in epidemiology: Sedentary behaviour. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41:1460–1471.
69.
BassettDRFitzhughECHeathGW. Estimated energy expenditures for school-based policies and active living. Am J Prev Med.2013;44(2):108–113.
70.
FremeauxAEMallamKMMetcalfBS. The impact of school-time activity on total physical activity: The activitystat hypothesis (EarlyBird 46). Int J Obes.2011;35:1277–1283.
71.
KriemlerSZahnerLSchindlerC. Effect of school based physical activity programme (KISS) on fitness and adiposity in primary schoolchildren: Cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2010;340:8.
72.
LongMWSobolAMCradockAL. School-day and overall physical activity among youth. Am J Prev Med.2013;45(2):150–157.
