Next Article in Journal
Methylmercury in Industrial Harbor Sediments in Taiwan: First Observations on Its Occurrence, Distribution, and Measurement
Next Article in Special Issue
A Daily Cup of Tea or Coffee May Keep You Moving: Association between Tea and Coffee Consumption and Physical Activity
Previous Article in Journal
Exploring the Relationship between Ridesharing and Public Transit Use in the United States
Previous Article in Special Issue
Youth and Adult Visitation and Physical Activity Intensity at Rural and Urban Parks
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 15
Issue 8
10.3390/ijerph15081764
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Moderators of School-Based Physical Activity Interventions on Cardiorespiratory Endurance in Primary School-Aged Children: A Meta-Regression

by
Ryan D. Burns
1,*,
Timothy A. Brusseau
1 and
You Fu
2
1
Department of Health, Kinesiology, and Recreation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA
2
School of Community Health Sciences, University of Nevada Reno, Reno, NV 89557, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15(8), 1764; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15081764
Submission received: 10 July 2018 / Revised: 1 August 2018 / Accepted: 14 August 2018 / Published: 16 August 2018
(This article belongs to the Collection Physical Activity and Public Health)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The purpose of this study was to examine potential moderators of school-based physical activity interventions on cariorespiratory endurance in primary school-aged children using meta-regression. An Internet search with several databases was employed, extracting school-based pediatric physical activity intervention studies published within the past 30 years. Studies were included if there was a control or comparison group, if the study sample included primary school-aged children, if the targeted outcome of cardiorespiratory endurance was objectively assessed, if the intervention was at least partially school-based, and if the effect estimate’s variability was reported. An inverse-variance random effects meta-regression was employed using the primary predictors of component number (single component or multi-component) and intervention length using 20 extracted studies with 23 total effects. The overall pooled effect on cardiorespiratory endurance was statistically significant (Hedges’ g = 0.30, 95% C.I.: 0.19–0.40; p < 0.001). Using random effects meta-regression, neither component number (b = −0.09, 95% C.I.: −0.40–0.23; p = 0.560) or intervention length (b = 0.001, 95% C.I.: −0.002–0.004; p = 0.427) yielded a significant modifying effect on cardiorespiratory endurance. School-based physical activity interventions have a significant pooled effect on cardiorespiratory endurance in primary school-aged children. Component number and intervention length does not modify this effect, suggesting other sources for between-study heterogeneity.

1. Introduction

Physical activity is a modifiable health behavior that has numerous benefits for children, including decreased risk for non-communicable cardio-metabolic disease [1], improved cognitive functioning [2], and improved emotional well-being [3]. Despite these benefits, it has repeatedly been shown that children do not meet the recommended guideline of 60 min of physical activity per day [4,5]. To address this important public health issue, over the past couple of decades, school-based physical activity interventions have been a popular strategy to facilitate children meeting the 60-min per day guideline and to develop the knowledge and skills to be physically active throughout their lifespan [6,7].
School-based physical activity interventions primarily focus on providing additional, enhanced, or expanded physical activity opportunities during specific school components, such as during physical education or by incorporating activity breaks in the academic classroom [8,9,10]. Increasingly, interventions have been incorporating a multi-component approach, such as Comprehensive School Physical Activity Programming, which use all available resources throughout the school day to improve physical activity behaviors and decrease sedentary times in children and adolescents [11,12]. Various components targeted by these interventions include physical education, during the academic classroom, recess, before/after school, and the family and community. Many single and multicomponent interventions have been successful in being implemented in schools enrolling different populations of youth (e.g., low-income, ethnic/racial minorities) with respective interventions aligning with various established theoretical frameworks (e.g., social cognitive theory, ecological model) [13,14,15]. However, it is unclear if multicomponent intervention approaches significantly yield greater efficacy or effectiveness compared to single component intervention approaches, and if other characteristics of said interventions, such as intervention length, modify program efficacy. Therefore, given the relatively large pool of published work in this area, much can be learned by testing these physical activity intervention characteristics as potential moderators using meta-regression statistical methods.
Most research examining the efficacy of school-based physical activity interventions use the behavior of physical activity as a primary outcome of interest [16,17]. Inherently, this is to be expected as it is this health behavior that is targeted, however its assessment not without limitation, given the varying evidence for construct validity for some of the employed instruments (e.g., questionnaires, systematic observation) and the numerous potential confounders that may influence observed results using more objective instruments such as accelerometers (e.g., accelerometer epoch length, accelerometer wear time) [18,19,20]. Additionally, physical activity is usually only assessed across one week or school week, which can be further confounded by weather, school scheduling, etc. [21,22,23]. Indeed, systematic reviews and meta-analyses exploring the pooled effect of physical activity interventions have often yielded null findings or effects that are small in magnitude [24,25], which may be partially due to the aforementioned confounding factors in the assessment of physical activity behaviors. Therefore, other constructs can be used to establish the efficacy or effectiveness of school-based physical activity interventions. Additional important outcomes of physical activity interventions are the domains of health-related fitness: body composition, cardiorespiratory endurance, muscular strength and endurance, and flexibility.
Health-related fitness consists of five domains consisting of body composition, cardiorespiratory endurance, muscular strength and endurance, and flexibility. Cardiorespiratory endurance is a domain that has established moderate links with health outcomes in the pediatric population [26,27]. Cardiorespiratory endurance is the ability of the circulatory and respiratory systems to supply oxygen during prolonged physical activity and is a domain often assessed in national fitness test batteries (e.g., Fitnessgram) using measured or estimated relative aerobic power (VO2 Peak) as the metric of assessment [28]. Research has shown independent relationships between cardiorespiratory endurance and cardio-metabolic risk in children and adolescents, independent of body composition levels [29,30]. Indeed, because body composition (e.g., percent body fat, body mass index (BMI)) is often cofounded by other energy balance behaviors such as diet and out-of-school physical activity [31,32], cardiorespiratory endurance may be a more practical domain of health-related fitness to assess within the context of school-based intervention assessment and may reflect habitual physical activity sustained over periods of time [33]. Additionally, because cardiorespiratory endurance is a physiological trait, it can be easily targeted in its assessment as evidenced by the strong construct validity of various established lab and field tests utilized in pediatric fitness surveillance research [34,35]. Moderating influences of school-based physical activity interventions have been explored in adolescents, however, to the authors’ knowledge, no study has quantified various moderating influences of school-based physical activity interventions on the health-related fitness domain of cardiorespiratory endurance in children. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the modifying influence of intervention component number and intervention length on the effect of school-based physical activity interventions on cardiorespiratory endurance in children using random effects meta-regression.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Literature Search Strategy

An internet search with several databases was performed (MEDLINE (PubMed), SCOPUS, EMBASE, SportDiscus) using the keywords “Aerobic Fitness”, “Cardiorespiratory Endurance”, “Children”, “Exercise”, “Interventions”, “Physical Activity”, and “School”. The Boolean operator ‘AND’ was used for combinations among keywords. The initial selection was based on the titles of manuscripts and the abstracts. Two authors performed separate independent searches and assessed extracted studies for relevance and eligibility. Discrepancies in the initial extracted studies were settled by the third author. Discrepancies were settled by consensus and the initial set of extracted studies was assessed further for eligibility.

2.2. Eligibility Criteria

A flow chart communicating the study search and extraction procedures is provided in Figure 1. After extraction of the original identified studies, studies were included in the meta-analysis based on having an assessment of cardiorespiratory endurance as an outcome, employing a controlled experimental or quasi-experimental research design (intervention efficacy or effectiveness study) within a school setting, and the reporting of the effect estimate’s variability in the form of standard errors or standard deviations. Studies were included if they had a direct measure of aerobic power, an aerobic power estimate, or a proxy performance assessment (e.g., shuttle run laps) as a primary or secondary outcome. Studies were not included if the primary intervention was in an “after-school” or “community” setting. Studies employing a pre-test/post-test design with no control or comparison group were also eliminated. Finally, interventions targeting just girls or interventions targeting specific healthy children populations (e.g., low-income) were included in the analysis, however interventions targeting youth with physical disabilities were eliminated. Interventions targeting adolescents in middle or secondary schools were excluded. There was consensus between two primary reviewers on the final twenty extracted studies used for the meta-analysis.

2.3. Type of Participants

Participants were children enrolled in primary/elementary schools participating in a school-based physical activity intervention. Interventions targeting a specific sex or children who were overweight or obese were included. Given the information presented in the included studies, all subjects were provided informed consent and signed assent forms, with parents or guardians signing consent forms prior to data collection.

2.4. Types of Physical Activity Interventions

To be included in the meta-analysis, at least some aspect of the intervention must have been implemented during school hours. Both single and multicomponent physical activity interventions were included. Interventions were included if they incorporated high-intensity interval training (HIIT) but were excluded if resistance training was the only employed exercise modality, given these interventions target the muscular strength and endurance domains of health-related fitness. Intervention length was not a parameter used for study inclusion or exclusion.

2.5. Outcome Measures

Studies were included having a direct measure of aerobic power (measured VO2 Peak), an estimate of aerobic power calculated from a validated prediction algorithm, or a performance proxy assessment, such as shuttle run laps or one-mile run/walk times. Self-reported measures or tests assessing anaerobic performance were excluded. Cardiorespiratory endurance did not have to be a primary outcome of interest to be included in the meta-analysis.

2.6. Calculation of Standardized Mean Differences

For each selected study, three sources of information were used to calculate the effect sizes or standardized mean differences (SMDs). These sources of information included: (1) the intervention and control group’s sample sizes, (2) the intervention and control group’s mean differences between pre-test and post-test on the respective cardiorespiratory endurance assessment, and (3) the standard deviation of the intervention and control group’s mean differences on the respective cardiorespiratory endurance assessment.

2.7. Data Processing

Primary predictors in the employed meta-regression were component number and intervention length. The outcome variable was the standardized mean differences at the study level. The predictor of component number (single, multiple) was a dichotomized categorical variable. The referent was single component interventions. Intervention length was examined on the continuous measurement scale and was scaled in weeks. If the length of the intervention in a manuscript was communicated in months, the number was multiplied by 4.35 to obtain the approximate number of weeks. Sex was not included as a predictor because of the small number of single sex-controlled school-based interventions targeting cardiorespiratory endurance.

2.8. Statistical Analysis

For three of the 20 extracted studies, the reporting of the results was either stratified by sex (boy, girl) or by body composition status (normal weight, overweight/obese). These studies were treated as separate sub-studies clustered within a larger study. This methodology yielded 23 separate standardized mean differences. Because the number of higher-level clusters was small, we decided not to statistically adjust for this clustering of results. The employed meta-analysis tested the null hypothesis that the overall effect (Hedges’ g) of school-based physical activity interventions on improving cardiorespiratory endurance was zero. The Der Simonian and Laird random effects model was employed. Random effects models take into account both between-study variance and within-study sampling error. Studies were weighted based on inverse variance, which included both within-study sampling error and between-study variance (i.e., heterogeneity). Individual study effects and the overall summary effect were reported within a Forest Plot with corresponding 95% Confidence Intervals.
Heterogeneity across the studies was quantitatively assessed using Cochran’s Q test (with alpha set at p ≤ 0.10) and the I2 statistic [36]. The magnitude of between-study heterogeneity was determined to be small if I2 < 50%, moderate if I2 = 50%–75%, and large if I2 > 75% [36]. Publication bias was assessed via visual inspection of Funnel Plots and was statistically assessed using the Egger linear regression test and a Galbraith plot [37]. Publication bias usually occurs when studies with relatively smaller sample sizes are published due to the presence of significant findings, which in turn may cause a mis-representativeness of available evidence and may distort the observed overall pooled effect. Funnel Plots were determined to be asymmetrical if the intercepts from the Egger regression model and Galbraith plot significantly deviated from zero [37]. The Funnel Plot was obtained using STATA’s “metafunnel” command and the Egger regression parameter estimates with Galbraith plots were obtained using STATA’s “metabias” command.
To explore calculated between-study heterogeneity, a random effects meta-regression was performed using STATA’s “metareg” command. Standardized mean differences were regressed onto intervention component number and intervention length using residual maximum likelihood (REML) to estimate the between-study component of variance. Calculated parameter estimates (b-coefficients) with corresponding 95% Confidence Intervals were reported. A scatterplot and line of best fit was presented displaying the linear relationship between the standardized mean differences and the continuous length predictor.
A post hoc sensitivity analysis was conducted, removing a single study from the meta-analysis per iteration to determine if the parameter estimates would significantly change compared to if that respective study was included. Any adjusted pooled effects and coefficients were reported and discussed. This procedure was conducted to ensure that no single one study significantly influenced the results.
If the aforementioned meta-analysis was found to contain publication bias, the nonparametric trim and fill method was employed using STATA’s “metatrim” command. This method estimates the number of missing studies needed to correct for publication bias and provides an updated Funnel Plot and pooled fixed and random effect estimates. It is cautioned that this procedure only fills hypothetical studies in order to yield a more symmetrical Funnel Plot. Results of this analysis are reported in the supplementary material. Alpha level was set at p < 0.05 and all analyses were conducted using the STATA v.15.0 statistical software package (College Station, TX, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Sample Characteristics

A total of 20 studies were extracted for the meta-analysis. Sample and intervention characteristics are reported in Table 1. Across the 20 studies, 10,779 (4879 control, 5900 intervention) primary school-aged children were recruited and analyzed on cardiorespiratory endurance outcomes. Studies were conducted in Australia (n = 3), Canada (n = 1), China (n = 1), France (n = 1), Iceland (n = 1), Ireland (n = 1), The Netherlands (n = 1), Norway (n = 1), United Kingdom (n = 2), United States (n = 6), Sweden (n = 1), and Switzerland (n = 1). Three studies included children from low-income schools. All children were recruited from primary or elementary grade levels/schools [38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57].

3.2. Intervention Characteristics

Of the 20 extracted studies, 13 were randomized control trials (RCTs) [38,40,41,43,44,47,48,49,50,52,54,56,57], and 10 were multicomponent [38,39,41,44,48,49,50,52,54,56]. Intervention lengths ranged from six weeks to three years in duration. Eight of the 20 interventions included expanding, extending, or enhancing the quality of physical education lessons [39,41,43,49,50,52,54,55]. Six of the 20 interventions included academic classroom activity breaks [40,42,46,50,52,56], and three included enhanced health education lessons [44,45,48]. Five of the interventions expanded, extended, or enhanced physical activity opportunities during the school day that were not specific to physical education or during academic lessons [38,47,48,51,57].

3.3. Assessments

All extracted studies assessed cardiorespiratory endurance [38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57]. Two studies directly measured aerobic power using maximal progressive tests on the cycle ergometer or treadmill [48,53]. Most extracted studies used the 20-m multistage fitness test to assess cardiorespiratory endurance (n = 9) [38,40,41,45,50,51,52,56,57]. Three studies used the Progressive Aerobic Cardiovascular Endurance Run (PACER) test [43,46,47], and four studies used timed runs for assessment [39,49,54,55]. One study used the Eurofit submaximal cycle ergometry test [44], and one study used the 10-m Andersen test for assessment [42].

3.4. Meta-Analysis

The results of the random effects meta-analysis are presented in Figure 2. The overall pooled effect on cardiorespiratory endurance was statistically significant (Hedges’ g = 0.30, 95% C.I.: 0.19–0.40; p < 0.001), indicating an overall small pooled effect size. Heterogeneity across the studies was considered high (I2 = 83%, χ2(22) = 129.5, p < 0.001). Visual inspection of the Funnel Plot (Figure 3) suggests asymmetry. This was supported using Egger regression, as the constant was statistically different from zero (b0 = 2.78, 95% C.I.: 1.01–4.56; p = 0.004), suggesting the presence of publication bias. Figure 4 presents a Galbraith plot aligning with the Egger regression model, displaying the standard normal deviate on the y-axis and study precision on the x-axis. The 95% Confidence Interval does not cross the x-axis, supporting the presence of small study effects.

3.5. Meta-Regression

The results of the meta-regression analysis are presented in Table 2. Neither component number or intervention length were significant predictors of the obtained aggregate-level standardized mean differences. Figure 5 visually displays the linear relationship between the standardized mean differences and the continuous intervention length predictor variable. The size of the circles corresponds to the magnitude of study precision (i.e., 1/standard error).

3.6. Sensitivity Analysis

A sensitivity analysis was performed removing one study from the analysis per iteration to observe any significant changes in the parameter estimates. Removal of no one study significantly changed Hedges g, the Egger bias coefficient, or altered the results from the meta-regression. These results support that the obtained results from the meta-analysis and meta-regression are relatively robust.

3.7. Trim and Fill

Using the nonparametric trim and fill method, seven studies would theoretically need to be replaced to correct for publication bias. This would lower the overall pooled effect to a smaller estimate using the random effects model (Hedges’ g = 0.132, 95% C.I.: 0.016–0.249; p = 0.026). A table with the filled studies with their respective theoretical effect estimates, in addition to a revised Funnel Plot is provided in the Supplementary Material.

4. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine the moderators of school-based physical activity interventions on the health-related fitness domain of cardiorespiratory endurance in primary school-aged children. The results suggest a significant pooled effect of school-based interventions on cardiorespiratory endurance, however neither intervention component number nor intervention length modified this effect. The results from this review could manifest important information for researchers and practitioners devising effective interventions in primary school-aged children. A discussion on the potential mechanisms for the observed relationships, in addition to practical implications are provided.
A salient finding from the current analysis was that school-based physical activity interventions have a pooled effect on cardiorespiratory endurance levels in primary school-aged children. This effect was characterized as small in magnitude. Past systematic reviews have communicated that interventions tend to be more effective in improving physical activity in adolescents, especially multicomponent interventions [58]. In children, there has been less evidence for efficacy, especially interventions targeting low-income communities [58]. Specifically, in school settings, a meta-analysis conducted by Russ et al. [25] found statistically significant but small pooled effects for multicomponent interventions to increase physical activity in children and adolescents. Reasons for insignificant or small efficacy evidence are unclear within the pediatric population. Especially in young children, there are many confounding variables that could affect the targeted outcomes of physical activity interventions over time. Motivational constructs such as physical activity enjoyment may play an important role in sustaining elevated physical activity behaviors in children [59]. It could be argued that long duration interventions tend to lose novelty and thus lower interest and enjoyment in younger children [59]. Additionally, constructs such as goal-setting, which is often employed in various forms in school-based and community settings to promote physical activity [60,61], may be too difficult and too abstract for younger children to grasp, especially in its relationship to improve health and wellbeing [62]. Therefore, interventions that set individual-level or group-level goals for physical activity or for specific domains of health-related fitness may not be as effective in younger children compared to older adolescents [63]. However, at least in the current review, controlled interventions yielded a clear significant but small effect on cardiorespiratory endurance levels. Despite the small effect, it was robust given the results from the sensitivity analysis and inclusion of theoretical studies to correct for publication bias.
Establishing efficacy of school-based interventions to improve cardiorespiratory endurance is an important finding that supports the implementation of these interventions in children. Improvements in cardiorespiratory endurance may be clinically and practically important, given that cardiorespiratory endurance is a trait with established links to cardio-metabolic health and cognitive functioning [64,65,66]. Despite these positive findings, like many past meta-analyses examining physical activity interventions [67], there was high observed heterogeneity across the included studies. This phenomenon, often observed in pediatric behavioral interventions, was addressed by performing meta-regression on the potential moderators of intervention component number and intervention length.
Using meta-regression, it was found that there was no modifying effect of intervention component number on cardiorespiratory endurance levels. As stated previously, it has been recommended that school-based interventions adopt a multicomponent approach to increase physical activity during the school day [11]. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis support this recommendation in older adolescents, as interventions using the multicomponent paradigm have yielded greater effects compared to single components programs for increasing physical activity levels [58]. Specific components of programs such as Comprehensive School Physical Activity Programming (CSPAP) include promotion of physical activity during school, before and after school, staff wellness and family and community engagement [68,69]. Multicomponent programs have been recommended across the globe in countries such as Ireland, Finland, France, Germany, the United States, and Switzerland [68,69]. Although these types of physical activity programs have been recommended, adoption and evaluation have been sparse because of limited resources including cost, time, and availability of quality trained staff to implement the program [25]. Interestingly, the results of the current analysis suggest that multicomponent interventions did not have a benefit over single component interventions for improving primary school-aged children’s cardiorespiratory endurance levels.
Two of the studies reporting the greatest effect in this review implemented two different types of physical activity programming. Reed et al. [52] implemented a multicomponent intervention called “Action Schools! BC” where six “Action Zones” were targeted across a one-year intervention. These “Action Zones” are similar to those incorporated into CSPAP, but also included additional components such as “School Spirit”. Cardiorespiratory endurance was the outcome with the greatest change at the end of the intervention, with the authors reporting 20.4% unadjusted difference (increase) in change in shuttle run laps [58]. Conversely, Sollerhed and Ejlertsson [55] reported similar strong effects on cardiorespiratory endurance, however this particular intervention study used a single component approach, merely expanding the frequency of physical education lessons from two to four lessons per week across a three-year intervention. Given the drastically different methodological paradigms from the two aforementioned interventions, it can be suggested that in at least primary school-aged children, single component interventions, such as merely increasing the time or frequency of physical education, can be just as effective as implementing large-scale multi-component programs if executed efficiently and effectively. What may be of greater influence is the quality of the staff training and the degree of intervention program fidelity [70]. Additionally, specific programming characteristics such as the specific intensity of physical activity and frequency may also be potential moderators [71]. These potential effects should be explored with additional research.
Another important finding from the analysis was that there was no linear relationship between intervention length and the observed standardized mean differences. In a systematic review with meta-analysis conducted by Minatto et al. [72], examining the effect of school-based interventions on cardiorespiratory endurance in older adolescents, it was found that interventions ranging from 13–24 weeks in duration yielded greater improvements in cardiorespiratory endurance compared to interventions of shorter and longer durations. There could be an optimal intervention length to elicit improvements in cardiorespiratory endurance. The findings from Minatto et al. [72] support this, however the mechanisms for variation in effect due to length are unknown. As stated previously, longer length interventions may attenuate novelty and interest in younger children, which may affect motivational constructs such as physical activity enjoyment [59]. Because habitual physical activity is needed to improve cardiorespiratory endurance, decreases in the latter construct may be found with interventions of longer length. Conversely, very short duration interventions may not be long enough to elicit the physiological responses needed to improve aerobic capacity in younger children. Despite these theoretical mechanisms, intervention length did not relate to the observed effects at the study level. This could suggest other moderators may influence cardiorespiratory endurance, such as physical activity intensity and the duration of specific physical activity sessions within each respective intervention. Interestingly, in adolescents, Minatto et al. [72] did observe trends among the intensity of physical activity, weekly frequency of physical activity sessions and the observed standardized effects, however, these moderators were not tested statistically and there are many studies that do not report these specific characteristics when communicating the intervention; therefore, it is difficult to conclude whether these would be significant moderators. Finally, Crimarco et al. [73] found a relationship between school attendance and amotivation for physical activity. It could be that children who are not motivated to participate in physical activity have lower school attendance and thus fail to participate in the opportunities provided by a respective program. Especially in children who already have higher levels of amotivation, school-based programming may lead to a decrease in attendance and attenuate overall program efficacy. Indeed, the tailoring of interventions to elicit the most favorable outcomes is inherently complex; however, given the results of this study, it seems that in younger primary school-aged children, intervention length does not significantly modify the efficacy of school-based physical activity interventions on cardiorespiratory endurance.
These findings are important for both researchers and practitioners who are planning and implementing physical activity programming in schools with a goal of improving cardiorespiratory endurance. With the limited physical activity opportunities in schools and the challenge/cost of long interventions, this meta-regression highlights the impact even short single component interventions might have. More specifically, the enhancement of physical education or the expansion of classroom physical activity may have the ability to positively impact cardiorespiratory endurance in primary school-aged children. The addition of classroom-based activity or the improvements that might be made in physical education classes have little cost associated and the time is also minimal. Furthermore, practitioners may be able to have a positive change in a short period of time (e.g., six weeks), thus making programming appear more doable for teachers. If physical education teachers know that they can make meaningful change over the course of a unit (instead of the entire year), they may be more likely to implement programming. Similarly, if a research paraprofessional or a classroom teacher realizes that a shorter intervention can have a meaningful impact, they may be more likely to try something new and once they try it and have success, perhaps they are more likely to continue with the program in the long term.
There are limitations to this study that should be considered before the results can be generalized. First, the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis consisted of only school-aged children enrolled in primary or elementary school; therefore, the results do not generalize to older adolescents or younger preschool-aged children. Second, other moderators were not included in the meta-regression, such as sex, age, initial levels of health-related fitness, and type of assessment employed for cardiorespiratory endurance. These factors could have been significant moderators, however there was not enough information available to include them in the meta-regression model. Third, process information concerning intervention fidelity was not collected or analyzed in this review; variation in intervention implementation fidelity may have confounded the results. Finally, only cardiorespiratory endurance was targeted as the outcome of this review; overall intervention efficacy should not be solely based on variation of this construct but should only be considered in context with other observed outcomes in a respective study.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, school-based physical activity interventions have a significant effect on cardiorespiratory endurance in primary school-aged children. Using meta-regression, it was found that neither intervention component number nor intervention length modified this effect; therefore, other factors may be responsible for between-study heterogeneity. Practically, the results of this analysis suggest that single component interventions could be just as effective as multicomponent interventions for improving cardiorespiratory endurance. Additionally, because intervention length was not a significant effect modifier, the paradigm that long duration programs may yield greater health benefits should be in question. In the context of improving cardiorespiratory endurance, factors other than component number and intervention length should be targeted to yield acceptable physical activity program efficacy.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/8/1764/s1, Table S1. Filled studies from the Trim and Fill methodology. Figure S1. Adjusted Funnel Plot following the trim and fill methodology for cardiorespiratory endurance. Note: Filled studies indicted by square data points.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.D.B., T.A.B. and Y.F.; Methodology, R.D.B.; Formal Analysis, R.D.B.; Writing-Original Draft Preparation, R.D.B., T.A.B. and Y.F.; Writing-Review and Editing, R.D.B., T.A.B. and Y.F.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ekelund, U.; Luan, J.; Sherar, L.B.; Esliger, D.W.; Griew, P.; Cooper, A.; for the International Children’s Accelerometry Database. Moderate to vigorous physical activity and sedentary time and cardio-metabolic risk factors in children and adolescents. JAMA 2012, 307, 704–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Hillman, C.H.; Erickson, K.I.; Kramer, A.F. Be smart, exercise your heart: Exercise effects on brain and cognition. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2008, 9, 58–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Biddle, S.J.; Asare, M. Physical activity and mental health in children and adolescents: A review of reviews. Br. J. Sports Med. 2011, 45, 886–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Katzmarzyk, P.T.; Denstel, K.N.; Beals, K.; Bolling, C.; Wright, C.; Crouter, S.E.; McKenzie, T.L.; Pate, R.R.; Saelens, B.E.; Staiano, A.E.; et al. Results from the United States of America’s 2016 report card on physical activity for children and youth. J. Phys. Act. Health 2016, 13, S307–S313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Cooper, A.R.; Goodman, A.; Page, A.S.; Sherar, L.B.; Esliger, D.W.; Sluijs, E.M.; Andersen, L.B.; Anderssen, S.; Cardon, G.; Davey, R.; et al. Objectively measured physical activity and sedentary time in youth: The International children’s accelerometry database (ICAD). Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Strategies to Prevent Obesity and Other Chronic Diseases: The CDC Guide to Strategies to Increase Physical Activity in the Community. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/downloads/PA_2011_WEB.pdf (accessed on 14 August 2018).
  7. Pate, R.R.; Davis, M.G.; Robinson, T.N.; Stone, E.J.; McKenzie, T.L.; Young, J.C. Promoting physical activity in children and youth: A leadership role for schools: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism (Physical Activity Committee) in collaboration with the Councils on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young and Cardiovascular Nursing. Circulation 2006, 114, 1214–1224. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  8. Beets, M.W.; Okely, A.; Weaver, R.G.; Webster, C.; Lubans, D.; Brusseau, T.; Carsom, R.; Cliff, D.P. The theory of expanded, extended, and enhanced opportunities for youth physical activity promotion. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Mears, R.; Jago, R. Effectiveness of after-school interventions at increasing moderate-to-vigorous physical activity levels in 5- to 18-year olds: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Sports Med. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Watson, A.; Timperio, A.; Brown, H.; Best, K.; Hesketh, K.D. Effect of classroom-based physical activity interventions on academic and physical activity outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. School health guidelines to promote healthy eating and physical activity. MMWR 2011, 60, 28–33. [Google Scholar]
  12. Carson, R.L.; Castelli, D.M.; Beighle, A.; Erwin, H. School-based physical activity promotion: A conceptual framework for research and practice. Child. Obes. 2014, 10, 100–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Vander Ploeg, K.A.; McGavock, J.; Maximova, K.; Veugelers, P.J. School-based health promotion and physical activity during and after school hours. Pediatrics 2014, 133, e371–e378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Mahar, M.T.; Murphy, S.K.; Rowe, D.A.; Golden, J.; Shields, A.T.; Raedeke, T.D. Effects of a classroom-based program on physical activity and on-task behavior. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2006, 38, 2086–2094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Brusseau, T.A.; Hannon, J.C.; Burns, R. The effect of a Comprehensive School Physical Activity Program on physical activity and health-related fitness in children from low-income families. J. Phys. Act. Health 2016, 13, 888–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Naylor, P.J.; Nettlefold, L.; Race, D.; Hoy, C.; Ashe, M.C.; Higgins, J.W.; McKay, H.A. Implementation of school based physical activity interventions: A systematic review. Prev. Med. 2015, 72, 95–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Owen, M.B.; Curry, W.B.; Kerner, C.; Newson, L.; Fairclough, S.J. The effectiveness of school-based physical activity interventions for adolescent girls: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev. Med. 2007, 105, 237–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Saint-Maurice, P.F.; Welk, G.; Ihmels, M.A.; Krapfl, J.R. Validation of the SOPLAY direct observation tool with an accelerometry-based physical activity monitor. J. Phys. Act. Health 2011, 8, 1108–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Cain, K.L.; Sallis, J.F.; Conway, T.L.; Van Dyck, D.; Calhoon, L. Using accelerometers in youth physical activity studies: A review of methods. J. Phys. Act. Health 2013, 10, 437–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Kim, Y.; Beets, M.W.; Pate, R.R.; Blair, S.N. The effect of reintegrating Actigraph accelerometer counts in preschool children: Comparison using different epoch lengths. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2013, 16, 129–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Brusseau, T.A.; Kulinna, P.H.; Tudor-Locke, C.; van der Mars, H.; Darst, P. Children’s step counts on weekend, physical education, and non physical education days. J. Hum. Kinet. 2011, 27, 125–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Remmers, T.; Thijs, C.; Timperio, A.; Salmon, J.O.; Veitch, J.; Kremers, S.P.J.; Ridgers, N.D. Daily weather and children’s physical activity patterns. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2017, 49, 922–929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Chan, C.B.; Ryan, D.A. Assessing the effects of weather conditions on physical activity participation using objective measures. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2009, 6, 2639–2654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Borde, R.; Smith, J.J.; Sutherland, R.; Nathan, N.; Lubans, D.R. Methodological considerations and impact of school-based interventions on objectively measured physical activity in adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes. Rev. 2017, 18, 476–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Russ, L.B.; Webster, C.A.; Beets, M.W.; Phillips, D.S. Systematic review and meta-analysis of multi-component interventions through schools to increase physical activity. J. Phys. Act. Health 2015, 12, 1436–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Welk, G.J.; Laurson, K.R.; Eisenmann, J.C.; Cureton, K.J. Development of youth aerobic capacity standards using receiver operating characteristic curves. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2011, 41, S111–S116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Sasayama, K.; Ochi, E.; Adachi, M. Importance of Both Fatness and Aerobic Fitness on Metabolic Syndrome Risk in Japanese Children. PLoS ONE 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Eisenmann, J.C.; Laurson, K.R.; Welk, G.J. Aerobic fitness percentiles for US adolescents. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2011, 41, S106–S110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Eisenmann, J.C.; Katzmarzyk, P.T.; Perusse, L.; Tremblay, A.; Despres, J.P.; Bouchard, C. Aerobic fitness, body mass index, and CVD risk factors among adolescents: The Québec family study. Int. J. Obes. 2005, 29, 1077–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Burns, R.D.; Brusseau, T.A.; Fang, Y.; Fu, Y.; Hannon, J.C. Waist-to-Height ratio, aerobic fitness, and cardio-metabolic risk in Hispanic children from low-income U.S. schools. Pediatr. Exerc. Sci. 2016, 28, 388–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. An, R. Diet quality and physical activity in relation to childhood obesity. Int. J. Adolesc. Med. Health 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Janssen, I.; Katzmarzyk, P.T.; Boyce, W.F.; Vereecken, C.; Mulvihill, C.; Roberts, C.; Currie, C.; Pickett, W.; The Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children Obesity Working Group. Comparison of overweight and obesity prevalence in school-aged youth from 34 countries and their relationships with physical activity and dietary patterns. Obes. Rev. 2005, 6, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Morrow, J.R.; Freedson, P.S. Relationship between habitual physical activity and aerobic fitness in adolescents. Pediatr. Exerc. Sci. 1994, 6, 315–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mahar, M.T.; Welk, G.J.; Rowe, D.A. Estimation of aerobic fitness from PACER performance with and without body mass index. Meas. Phys. Educ. Exerc. Sci. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Burns, R.D.; Hannon, J.C.; Brusseau, T.A.; Eisenman, P.A.; Shultz, B.B.; Saint-Maurice, P.F.; Welk, G.J.; Mahar, M.T. Development of an aerobic capacity prediction model from one-mile run/walk performance in adolescents aged 13–16 years. J. Sports Sci. 2016, 34, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Higgins, J.P.T.; Thompson, S.G.; Deeks, J.J.; Altman, D.G. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003, 327, 557–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Egger, M.; Smith, G.D.; Schneider, M.; Minder, C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997, 315, 629–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Cohen, K.E.; Morgan, P.J.; Plontikoff, R.C.; Callister, R.; Lubans, D.R. Physical activity and skills intervention: SCORES cluster randomized controlled trial. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2014, 47, 765–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Coleman, K.J.; Tiller, C.L.; Sanchez, J.; Heath, E.M.; Sy, O.; Milliken, G.; Dzewaltowski, D.A. Prevention of the epidemic increase in child risk of overweight in low-income schools: The El Paso coordinated approach to child health. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 2005, 159, 217–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. De Greef, J.W.; Hartman, E.; Mullender-Wijnsma, M.J.; Bosker, R.J.; Doolaard, S.; Visscher, C. Long-term effects of physically active academic lessons on physical fitness and functions in primary school children. Health Educ. Res. 2016, 31, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Eather, N.; Morgan, P.J.; Lubans, D.R. Feasibility and preliminary efficacy of the Fit4Fun intervention for improving physical fitness in a sample of primary school children: A pilot study. Phys. Educ. Sport Pedagog. 2013, 18, 389–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Fairclough, S.J.; McGrane, B.; Sanders, G.; Taylor, S.; Owen, M.; Curry, W. A non-equivalent group pilot trial of a school-based physical activity and fitness intervention for 10–11 year old English children: Born to move. BMC Public Health 2016, 16, 861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Faigenbaum, A.D.; Bush, J.A.; McLoone, R.P.; Kreckel, M.C.; Farrell, A.; Ratamess, N.A.; Kang, J. Benefits of strength and skill-based training during primary school physical education. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2015, 29, 1255–1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Harrell, J.S.; McMurray, R.G.; Bangdiwala, S.I.; Frauman, A.C.; Gansky, S.A.; Bradley, C.B. Effects of a school-based intervention to reduce cardiovascular disease risk factors in elementary school children: The Cardiovascular Health in Children (CHIC) study. J. Pediatr. 1996, 128, 797–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Harrison, M.; Burns, C.F.; McGuinness, M.; Heslin, J.; Murphy, N.M. Influence of a health education intervention on physical activity and screen time in primary school children: ‘Switch Off—Get Active’. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2006, 9, 388–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Katz, D.L.; Cushman, D.; Reynolds, J.; Njike, V.; Treu, J.A.; Katz, C.; Walker, J.; Smith, E. Putting physical activity where it fits in the school day: Preliminary results of the ABC (Activity Bursts in the Classroom) for fitness program. Prev. Chronic Dis. 2010, 7, A82. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  47. Lau, P.W.; Wang, J.J.; Maddison, R. A randomized-controlled trial of school-based active videogame intervention on Chinese children’s aerobic fitness, physical activity level, and psychological correlates. Games Health J. 2016, 5, 405–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Magnusson, R.T.; Hrafnkelsson, H.; Sigurgeirsson, I.; Johannsson, E.; Sveinsson, T. Limited effects of a 2-year school-based physical activity intervention on body composition and cardiorespiratory fitness in 7-year-old children. Health Educ. Res. 2012, 27, 484–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. McKenzie, T.L.; Nader, P.R.; Strikmiller, P.K.; Yang, M.; Stone, E.J.; Perry, C.L.; Taylor, W.C.; Epping, J.N.; Feldman, H.A.; Luepker, R.V.; et al. School physical education: Effect of the Child and Adolescent Trial for Cardiovascular Health. Prev. Med. 1996, 25, 423–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Meyer, U.; Schindler, C.; Zachner, L.; Ernst, D.; Hebestreit, H.; van Mechelen, W.; Brunner-La, R.H.P.; Probst-Hensch, N.; Puder, J.J.; Kriemler, S. Long-Term Effect of a school-based physical activity program (KISS) on fitness and adiposity in children: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e87929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  51. Nogueira, R.C.; Weeks, B.K.; Beck, B.R. An in-school exercise intervention to enhance bone and reduce fat in girls: The CAPO Kids trial. Bone 2014, 68, 92–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Reed, K.E.; Warburton, D.E.R.; Macdonald, H.M.; Naylor, P.J.; McKay, H.A. Action Schools! BC: A school-based physical activity intervention designed to decrease cardiovascular disease risk factors in children. Prev. Med. 2008, 46, 525–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Resaland, G.K.; Andersen, L.B.; Mamen, A.; Anderssen, S.A. Effects of a 2-year school-based daily physical activity intervention on cardiorespiratory fitness: The Sogndal school-intervention study. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2011, 21, 302–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Sallis, J.F.; McKenzie, T.L.; Alcaraz, J.E.; Kolody, B.; Faucette, N.; Hovell, M.F. Effects of a 2-year physical education program (SPARK) on physical activity and fitness in elementary school students. Am. J. Public Health 1997, 87, 1328–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Sollerhed, A.C.; Ejlertsson, G. Physical benefits of expanded physical education in primary school: Findings from a 3-year intervention study in Sweden. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2008, 18, 102–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Taylor, S.L.; Noonan, R.J.; Knowles, Z.R.; Owen, M.B.; McGrane, B.; Curry, W.B.; Fairclough, S.J. Evaluation of a pilot school-based physical activity clustered randomised controlled trial—Active Schools: Skelmersdale. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Thivel, D.; Isacco, L.; Lazaar, N.; Aucouturier, J.; Ratel, S.; Dore, E.; Meyer, M.; Duche, P. Effect of a 6-month school-based physical activity program on body composition and physical fitness in lean and obese school children. Eur. J. Pediatr. 2011, 170, 1435–1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. van Sluijs, E.M.; McMinn, A.M.; Griffin, S.J. Effectiveness of interventions to promote physical activity in children and adolescents: Systematic review of controlled trials. Br. J. Sports Med. 2008, 42, 653–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Burns, R.D.; Fu, Y.; Podlog, L.W. School-based physical activity interventions and physical activity enjoyment: A meta-analysis. Prev. Med. 2017, 103, 84–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. McEwan, D.; Harden, S.M.; Zumbo, B.D.; Sylvester, B.D.; Kaulius, M.; Ruissen, G.R.; Dowd, A.J.; Beauchamp, M.R. The effectiveness of multi-component goal setting interventions for changing physical activity behaviour: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Psychol. Rev. 2016, 10, 67–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Shilts, M.K.; Horowitz, M.; Townsend, M.S. Goal setting as a strategy for dietary and physical activity behavior change: A review of the literature. Am. J. Health Promot. 2004, 19, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Lytle, L.; Achterberg, C. Changing the diet of America’s children: What works and why? J. Nutr. Educ. 1995, 27, 250–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Burns, R.D.; Brusseau, T.A.; Fu, Y. Influence of goal setting on physical activity and cardio-respiratory endurance in low-income children enrolled in CSPAP schools. Am. J. Health Educ. 2017, 48, 32–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Boreham, C.; Riddoch, C. The physical activity, fitness, and health of children. J. Sports Sci. 2001, 19, 915–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Trudeau, F.; Shephard, R.J. Physical education, school physical activity, school sports and academic performance. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Boddy, L.M.; Murphy, M.H.; Cunningham, C.; Breslin, G.; Foweather, L.; Gobbi, R.; Graves, L.E.; Hopkins, N.D.; Auth, M.K.; Stratton, G. Physical activity, cardiorespiratory fitness, and clustered cardio-metabolic risk in 10- to 12-year-old school children: The REACH Y6 study. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 2014, 26, 446–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Conn, V.S.; Hafdahl, A.R.; Mehr, D.R. Interventions to increase physical activity among healthy adult: Meta-analysis of outcomes. Am. J. Public Health 2011, 101, 751–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Tannehill, D.; Van der Mars, H.; McPhail, A. Comprehensive school physical activity programs. In Building Effective Physical Education Programs; Jones & Bartlett Learning: Burlington, VT, USA, 2014; pp. 27–54. [Google Scholar]
  69. Comprehensive School Physical Activity Programs: A Guide for Schools; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2013; p. 12.
  70. Carson, R.L.; Castelli, D.M.; Pulling Kuhn, A.C.; Moore, J.B.; Beets, M.W.; Beighle, A.; Aija, R.; Calvert, H.G.; Glowacki, E.M. Impact of trained champions of comprehensive school physical activity programs on school physical activity offerings, youth physical activity and sedentary behaviors. Prev. Med. 2014, 69, S12–S19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Armstrong, N.; Tomkinson, G.; Ekelund, U. Aerobic fitness and its relationship to sport, exercise training and habitual physical activity during youth. Brit. J. Sports Med. 2011, 45, 849–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Minatto, G.; Barbosa Filho, V.C.; Berria, J.; Petroski, E.L. School-based interventions to improve cardiorespiratory fitness in adolescents: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2016, 46, 1273–1292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Crimarco, A.; Mayfield, C.; Mitchell, N.; Beets, M.W.; Yin, Z.; Moore, J.B. Determinants of attendance at a physical activity focused afterschool program in elementary school children. Int. J. Exerc. Sci. 2018, 11, 137–151. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
Ijerph 15 01764 g001 550
Figure 1. Flowchart of study extraction and inclusion.
Figure 1. Flowchart of study extraction and inclusion.
Ijerph 15 01764 g001
Ijerph 15 01764 g002 550
Figure 2. Forest plot communicating individual and pooled standardized mean differences for cardiorespiratory endurance using the random effects Der Simonian and Laird model. Note: SMD stands for weighted standardized mean differences; 95% C.I. stands for 95% Confidence Interval.
Figure 2. Forest plot communicating individual and pooled standardized mean differences for cardiorespiratory endurance using the random effects Der Simonian and Laird model. Note: SMD stands for weighted standardized mean differences; 95% C.I. stands for 95% Confidence Interval.
Ijerph 15 01764 g002
Ijerph 15 01764 g003 550
Figure 3. Funnel plot showing the standard error of mean differences on the y-axis and the standardized mean differences on the x-axis for cardiorespiratory endurance.
Figure 3. Funnel plot showing the standard error of mean differences on the y-axis and the standardized mean differences on the x-axis for cardiorespiratory endurance.
Ijerph 15 01764 g003
Ijerph 15 01764 g004 550
Figure 4. Galbraith plot showing the standard normal deviate on the y-axis and study precision (1/standard error) on the x-axis for cardiorespiratory endurance. Note: SND stands for standard normal deviate; statistically significant intercept indicates presence of small study effects.
Figure 4. Galbraith plot showing the standard normal deviate on the y-axis and study precision (1/standard error) on the x-axis for cardiorespiratory endurance. Note: SND stands for standard normal deviate; statistically significant intercept indicates presence of small study effects.
Ijerph 15 01764 g004
Ijerph 15 01764 g005 550
Figure 5. Scatterplot and line of best fit showing the study-level linear relationship between standardized mean difference and intervention length (in weeks). Note: Size of circle indicates magnitude of study precision (1/standard error).
Figure 5. Scatterplot and line of best fit showing the study-level linear relationship between standardized mean difference and intervention length (in weeks). Note: Size of circle indicates magnitude of study precision (1/standard error).
Ijerph 15 01764 g005
Table
Table 1. Methodological summary of the 20 selected studies.
Table 1. Methodological summary of the 20 selected studies.
StudyStudy LocationSample SizeSample CharacteristicsIntervention LengthIntervention CharacteristicsCardiorespiratory Endurance Assessment
Cohen et al. (2015) [38]Australian = 208 (control)
n = 162 (intervention)		Low-income children12 monthsRCT; multicomponent; physical activity and fundamental motor skill focus20-m multistage fitness test
Coleman et al. (2005) † [39]United Statesn = 473 (control)
n = 423 (intervention)		Low-income children24 monthsNon-RCT; multicomponent; enhanced physical education and cafeteria nutrition, parent educationNine-minute timed run
De Greeff et al. (2016) [40]The Netherlandsn = 250 (control)
n = 249 (intervention)		Primary school-aged children24 monthsRCT; single component; physically active academic lessons20-m multistage fitness test
Eather et al. (2013) [41]Australian = 16 (control)
n = 27 (intervention)		Primary school-aged childrenEight weeksRCT; multicomponent; physical education, recess, home fitness program20-m multistage fitness test
Fairclough et al. (2016) [42]United Kingdomn = 48 (control)
n = 59 (intervention)		Primary school-aged childrenSix weeksNon-RCT; single component; structured class-based physical activity and fitness programAndersen Test (10 min 10-m intermittent shuttle run)
Faigenbaum et al. (2015) [43]United Statesn = 21 (control)
n = 20 (intervention)		Fourth grade childrenEight weeksRCT; single component; integrative strength skill and fitness program during physical education20-m PACER
Harrell et al. (1996) [44]United Statesn = 686 (control)
n = 588 (intervention)		Rural and urban third and fourth gradersEight weeksRCT; multicomponent; exercise program, nutrition and smoking education classesEurofit submaximal cycle ergometry test
Harrison et al. (2006) [45]Irelandn = 130 (control)
n = 182 (intervention)		Low-income primary school-aged children16 weeksNon-RCT; single component; health education curriculum20-m multistage fitness test
Katz et al. (2010) [46]United Statesn = 503 (control)
n = 603 (intervention)		Elementary school-aged childrenEight monthsNon-RCT; single component; academic classroom activity breaks20-m PACER
Lau et al. (2016) [47]Chinan = 40 (control)
n = 40 (intervention)		Primary school-aged children12 weeksRCT; single component; active video game intervention20-m PACER
Magnusson et al. (2012) [48]Icelandn = 151 (control)
n = 170 (intervention)		Elementary school-aged children24 monthsRCT; multicomponent; increasing physical activity, promotion of active commuting, outdoor teaching, healthy dietary promotionMaximal progressive cycle ergometer test
McKenzie et al. (1996) [49]United Statesn = 1294 (control)
n = 1920 (intervention)		Elementary school-aged children30 monthsRCT; multicomponent; health-related physical education, teacher training, on-site consultationNine-minute distance run
Meyer et al. (2014) [50]Switzerlandn = 100 (control)
n = 181 (intervention)		Elementary school-aged childrenNine monthsRCT; multicomponent; additional physical education classes, academic classroom activity breaks, physical activity homework20-m multistage fitness test
Nogueira et al. (2014) [51]Australian = 75 (control)
n = 76 (intervention)		Primary school-aged girlsNine monthsNon-RCT; single component, addition of 10-min exercise sessions three times per week20-m multistage fitness test
Reed et al. (2008) [52]Canadan = 81 (control)
n = 156 (intervention)		Elementary school-aged children16 weeksRCT; multicomponent; school environment, scheduled physical education, extra-curricular, school spirit, family and community, classroom physical activity20-m multistage fitness test
Resaland et al. (2011) [53]Norwayn = 86 (control)
n = 102 (intervention)		Primary school-aged children24 monthsNon-RCT; single component; additional 60 min of physical activity during school hoursMaximal progressive treadmill test
Sallis et al. (1997) † [54]United Statesn = 360 (control)
n = 595 (intervention)		Elementary school-aged children24 monthsRCT; multicomponent; health-related physical education, self-managementOne-mile run test
Sollerhed and Ejlertsson (2007) [55]Swedenn = 74 (control)
n = 58 (intervention)		Rural primary school aged children36 monthsNon-RCT; single component; expanded physical education lessonsSix-minute running test
Taylor et al. (2018) [56]United Kingdomn = 55 (control)
n = 60 (intervention)		Primary school-aged childrenEight weeksRCT pilot; multicomponent; active breaks, videos, running clubs, playground challenges, teacher training, newsletters and activity homework20-m multistage fitness test
Thivel et al. (2011) † [57]Francen = 228 (control)
n = 229 (intervention)		Primary school-aged childrenSix monthsRCT; single component; additional two hours of exercise per week20-m multistage fitness test
Note: RCT stands for randomized control trial; PACER stands for Progressive Aerobic Cardiovascular Endurance Run; † denotes a study where the reporting of the results was stratified; reported sample sizes are the number of children that completed the respective cardiorespiratory endurance assessment and subsequently used for analysis within each study.
Table
Table 2. Fixed effect parameter estimates from random effects meta-regression.
Table 2. Fixed effect parameter estimates from random effects meta-regression.
B-Coefficient95% Confidence Intervalp-Value
Multi-Component−0.09−0.40–0.230.560
Length (weeks)0.001−0.002–0.0040.427
Note: Referent for component is single component interventions; length predictor variable is on the continuous measurement scale.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Burns, R.D.; Brusseau, T.A.; Fu, Y. Moderators of School-Based Physical Activity Interventions on Cardiorespiratory Endurance in Primary School-Aged Children: A Meta-Regression. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1764. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15081764

AMA Style

Burns RD, Brusseau TA, Fu Y. Moderators of School-Based Physical Activity Interventions on Cardiorespiratory Endurance in Primary School-Aged Children: A Meta-Regression. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2018; 15(8):1764. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15081764

Chicago/Turabian Style

Burns, Ryan D., Timothy A. Brusseau, and You Fu. 2018. "Moderators of School-Based Physical Activity Interventions on Cardiorespiratory Endurance in Primary School-Aged Children: A Meta-Regression" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 15, no. 8: 1764. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15081764

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop