Skip to main content
Sports Medicine - Open
Download PDF
  • Systematic Review
  • Open access
  • Published:

Effectiveness of Intervention Strategies to Increase Adolescents’ Physical Activity and Reduce Sedentary Time in Secondary School Settings, Including Factors Related to Implementation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Sports Medicine - Open volume 10, Article number: 25 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

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.

Objective

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

Registration

PROSPERO (CRD42020169988).

Key Points

  • School-based interventions with adolescents have had null effects on increasing physical activity and reducing sedentary time.

  • The impact on physical and psychological outcomes has been poorly reported among secondary school students.

  • This review included articles with all experimental study designs, any intervention length, and that reported a variety of outcomes among adolescents in secondary schools (11–18 years old).

  • Although meta-analyses showed that these interventions did not increase physical activity or reduce sedentary time, studies that quantify adiposity markers showed a small decrease in body mass index.

  • The review identified that additional physical activity sessions, environmental modifications, teacher training, peer support, educational resources and/or active lesson strategies were associated with greater benefits.

  • Fidelity and participant responses were the most commonly reported implementation factors, adaptation was the least commonly reported; however, factors associated with effective implementation were not a focus of the included studies.

Background

Adequate physical activity has a multitude of benefits for adolescents including a reduced risk of developing adverse psychological [1] and physical health conditions [2]. Moreover, physical activity is positively associated with academic outcomes, including cognitive skills (e.g., executive functioning, memory) [3], attitude (e.g., motivation, self-concept) [4], academic behaviour (e.g., on-task time, organization) [5], and academic achievement (e.g., standardized test scores) [6]. Conversely, excess sedentary time particularly recreational screen-time, during adolescence has negative implications for psychological [1] and physical health [7]. It is currently recommended that adolescents engage in at least an average of 60 min per day of moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA) and limit the amount of time they spend sedentary [8].

Approximately 81% of adolescents globally do not meet physical activity guidelines [9]. Additionally, adolescents spend an average of nine hours per day sitting, which includes three hours per day engaged in sedentary screen-time [10]. Secondary (middle and high) school students can spend up to 75% of their class time sedentary; often accumulated in long, unbroken bouts of sitting [11]. Although secondary schools are typically required to provide regular physical education (PE) classes, just 36% of this time is spent in MVPA [12]. Moreover, scheduled PE time declines across secondary school years and is not always compulsory in the upper secondary or high school years [13]. There are many other opportunities for students to engage in movement behaviours (i.e., increase physical activity and/or reduce sedentary time) throughout the day, including recess and lunch breaks, and during, between and after lessons [14].

Several reviews have summarised school-based movement behaviour initiatives in the secondary school context, concluding that these have been largely ineffective (null to small positive effects) [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23]. However, the majority have reported intervention effects on MVPA [15, 16, 18, 21], or sedentary time [23], included just PE interventions (already contributing to school-hours physical activity) [16, 19, 21], focused on older adolescents [17] or girls only [22], restricted inclusion criteria to specific intervention designs (only RCTs) [17, 18] and study lengths [15, 18], or focused on low-middle income countries [20]. Meta-analyses were performed in only five reviews [15, 16, 18, 21, 23] that described the impact of school-based interventions on physical activity (small or null effects) [16, 18, 21], and just two analyzed the intervention components used [15, 16]. None have reported the factors crucial for intervention implementation effectiveness.

To our knowledge, there is currently no synthesis of non-PE interventions delivered at or by schools to improve movement behaviours across the school day, and existing reviews have generally not reported outcomes beyond movement behaviours, such as cognitive and academic outcomes, physical health, and/or psychological outcomes. 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.

Methods

Protocol and Registration

This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020169988) and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement guidelines (PRISMA). Following the PROSPERO registration, the eligibility criteria were expanded to include strategies targeting school-related work (i.e. homework) and a third aim was added: to describe factors related to intervention implementation.

Eligibility Criteria and Search Strategies

Eligibility criteria and search strategy were modelled on the Participants, Interventions, Comparisons, Outcomes, and Study design (PICOS) framework. Studies were included if they included: (a) Secondary/middle/high school-age adolescents (> 11 years and < 18 years); (b) Interventions delivered in the school setting (i.e., during class, recess and lunch time) and/or related to schoolwork (e.g., homework; c) Strategy/ies to increase physical activity of any intensity (i.e., light, moderate, vigorous or moderate to vigorous) and/or decrease sedentary behaviour); d) Any outcomes (for movement behaviours measures, have to report an effect on daily and/or school-based physical activity and sedentary behaviour); e) Any study design (e.g., randomized controlled trials [individual and cluster], controlled trials, pre-post studies design, quasi-experimental studies), and with any comparison (e.g., pre-post intervention comparison) or control groups (e.g., non-exposed control/comparison groups); f) written in English. Studies were excluded from this review if they included: (a) Target population was adolescents with special needs; primary (elementary), middle and secondary school studies were combined with results reported together; participants were in year 6 only (considered a primary school year in some countries); (b) Before- or after-school hours programs; (c) Intervention targeted PE lessons, before- or after-school hours, active travel, or educational programs (e.g., non-active lifestyle/health lessons) in isolation; (d) Non-experimental studies (e.g., cross-sectional and case studies); and (e) Findings were only reported in abstracts (including poster abstracts), conference proceedings, dissertations, commentaries, editorials, review articles, and letters. The search strategy is reported in Supplementary Table 1 (Search strategy used [i.e., EBSCO and EMBASE]).

Information Sources

A systematic search was conducted using six online databases: MEDLINE complete, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, APA PsycINFO, and ERIC. Further articles were identified via forwards and backward citation tracking of included articles and relevant systematic reviews. Peer-reviewed articles between January 2000 and January 2023 were considered for inclusion, as most school-based movement behaviour interventions have been conducted in the last ~ 20 years. Reference lists of the included articles were also screened to identify additional eligible interventions.

Study Selection

All search results were exported into a reference manager (Endnote x9, Clarivate analytics) and duplicates were removed. Titles and abstracts were exported to Covidence (Melbourne, Australia). Two authors (KP, AMC) screened all titles and abstracts; discussed discrepancies and came to a consensus for inclusion. Both authors reviewed the full text and discussed full-text discrepancies. Any disagreements were solved in a meeting involving four authors (AMC, KP, AT, JS).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Study selection process (PRISMA − 2020 version). Legend: IV, intervention; PA, physical activity; SB, sedentary behaviour

Full size image

Data Collection Process

After identifying published articles, the authors identified whether they constituted individual studies or multiple articles from the same study. Hereafter, “articles” refers to the count of papers identified, while “studies” pertains to the number of distinct research studies/interventions represented by these articles. Data extraction was performed by two authors (AMC and KP), and all articles were cross-checked for accuracy by an additional author (EM). Data extracted and quantified included study and participant characteristics, intervention strategies and intervention effects. Intervention outcomes were classified into five categories: movement behaviours (e.g., physical activity, sedentary time, energy expenditure), cognitive and academic outcomes (e.g., working memory, on task behaviour), physical health (e.g., fitness, obesity, and musculoskeletal health), and psychological outcomes. Data extraction of factors relevant to the implementation of the programs (performed by AMC and KP; checked for accuracy by NL) was guided by the United Kingdom Medical Research Council Process Evaluation of Complex Interventions [24], which includes the following three components: Implementation (implementation process, fidelity, dose, adaptations, reach), Mechanism of impact (participants’ responses, mediators, unanticipated pathways/consequences, and Context (contextual factors which affect/shape intervention). Descriptive analysis was used to describe studies, participants’ characteristics and intervention components and effects on physical activity (all intensities), sedentary time, cognitive/academic, physical health, and/or psychological outcomes.

Methodological Quality

Quality assessment screening was completed by three authors (AMC, KP, NL), in duplicate, using an adapted version of the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool for quantitative studies [25]. The three authors discussed discrepancies and came to a consensus for the scores. The components assessed were selection bias (sample representation), study design (e.g., RCT), confounders (e.g., control for baseline differences), blinding (researcher and participant), data collection methods (e.g., validity and reliability of the assessment tool used), withdrawals and dropouts (e.g., report of number of withdrawals and reason), intervention integrity (e.g., percentage of participants that received the intervention), and statistical analysis (e.g., use of intention to treat approach) [26]. Individual criteria for methodological quality scores and an overall quality score were created and rated as strong (no weak rating), moderate (one weak rating) or weak (> 1 weak rating) [25]. Inter-rater reliability for assessment of study quality between authors was moderate (Cohen’s Kappa = 0.6, p < 0.001).

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive analysis (number and/or percentage) was used to summarise studies and participant characteristics, intervention strategies and the effect of these strategies on physical activity (all intensities), sedentary time, cognitive/academic, physical health and/or psychological outcomes, and factors related to intervention implementation. In addition, meta-analyses were conducted using Stata v18 when at least three articles reported intervention effects on outcomes with a comparable device (e.g., actigraphy), same outcome (e.g. daily MPA, and/or measurement scales/unit (kg/m2, cm), provided complete data for pre- and post- intervention measurements, and were randomised controlled trials. Self-reported movement behaviour outcomes were excluded from the meta-analyses. Consequently, meta-analyses included articles reporting on comparable: (a) device-measured movement behaviours (i.e. sedentary time, LPA, MPA, VPA, MVPA assessed during the whole day); and (b) body mass index and waist circumference (measured with standardized protocols). The sample size, mean difference, and standard error/confidence interval between intervention and control groups were entered into Microsoft® Excel and effect sizes were calculated (due to the varying units for a given outcome, standardized mean differences were calculated and used in meta-analysis). Reported immediate intervention effects were used for these meta-analyses and, in case of incomplete reporting, the corresponding authors were contacted to request additional information. For cluster randomized controlled trials, the point estimate and the 95% confidence interval intervention-reported data from their intervention effect that accounted for clustering were extracted. For cluster-randomised controlled trials, we ensured that all studies included in the meta-analyses accounted for clustered data in their statistical analyses. In cases where a study included multiple groups receiving the same or different intervention, a group combination to create a single pair-wise comparison was used [28]. A random-effects restricted maximum-likelihood model was utilized for the meta-analyses.

The Q statistic and I2 [27], and visual inspection of the forest plots, were used to examine statistical heterogeneity. I2 indicated high heterogeneity when > 75% and moderate when > 50%. Random effect meta-regression models were used to explore heterogeneity induced by the relationship between moderators (i.e., participants’ age [years], duration of the intervention [weeks], type of intervention [single-or multi-component]) and study effect sizes, when there were more than ten studies in the meta-analysis [28]. Where the meta-regression suggested the presence of a potentially important covariate, subgroup analyses were used to further investigate the data. For all meta-analysis and meta-regression models, statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 and effect sizes were interpreted as 0.2 small, 0.5 medium and 0.6 as large [29]. To assess potential small-study effects and publication bias for meta-analysis with at least 10 studies (i.e. MVPA, BMI, and WC) [30], funnel plots were produced and the Egger regression asymmetry test [31] was conducted. The trim-and-fill [32] computation was also used to assess the effect of publication bias on the interpretation of results.

Results

Characteristics of the Included Studies

In total, 85 articles (from 63 studies) fulfilled the inclusion criteria (Table 1). Of the included studies, 17 (27%) were conducted in Australia, followed by the United Kingdom (n = 9, 14.3%), the USA (n = 6, 9.5%) and other countries (n = 31, 49%). Study sample sizes ranged from 33 [33] to 6,476 [34] (Table 1). In total, the studies included 45,733 participants, with 50 articles (58.9%) reporting on physical activity, 31 (36.4%) on sedentary time, 35 (41.2%) on physical health, and 12 (14.1%) on psychological outcomes. Participant ages ranged from 11 to 17 years and the average age was 13.7 years (reported in 44 articles, 51.8%). The percentage of girls varied between 36% [35] and 100% [36,37,38,39,40,41]. The participants’ sex was not reported in five studies [34, 42,43,44,45]. Most of the studies (n = 46, 73%) used a randomised controlled trial design [33,34,35,36,37,38,39, 42, 44, 46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78], 15 studies (23.8%) used a quasi-experimental design [40, 79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91], one study (1.6%) used a cross-over trial design [43] and one (1.6%) a hybrid effectiveness-implementation design [92]. Intervention length ranged from a single 20-min session [52, 62] to three years [81].

Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies and study populations description
Full size table

Strategies Used within Secondary-School Interventions and their Effect on Movement Behaviours, Cognitive/Academic, Physical Health and/or Psychological Outcomes

Various unique intervention strategies were reported (n = 23) across 11 categories (i.e., active lessons, community involvement, educational resources, environmental, incentives/rewards, peer support, physical activity session/s, research support, school policy, teacher training, and technology strategies). A definition, detailed description, and examples of these categories can be found in Table 2 and Supplementary Table 2, respectively. Single component interventions using only one strategy (n = 19 studies, 28.6%) involved physical activity sessions (n = 10), peer-led support (n = 6), or an environmental modification strategy (n = 3). Most interventions (n = 45 studies, 71.4%) involved the use of a combination of two or more strategies (‘multicomponent interventions’). The strategies most frequently used were: physical activity sessions (n = 31); environmental modifications (n = 29); educational resources (n = 25 interventions); peer support (n = 20); teacher training (n = 18); supporting technology (n = 11); active lessons (n = 8); community involvement (n = 7); research support (n = 6); incentives/rewards (n = 4); and school policies (n = 3) (Table 3). Although some interventions targeted several elements of the school day (e.g., class, recess/lunch, homework), 29 studies (46%) included a class-time component [37, 43, 44, 46, 50,51,52,53,54,55, 57,58,59, 63, 64, 66,67,68,69,70,71,72, 74, 79, 80, 84, 87, 89, 90], 22 studies (34.9%) a recess/lunch component [34, 35, 37, 38, 46, 49, 56, 57, 63, 65, 68,69,70, 72, 76, 77, 83, 86, 88, 91,92,93,94], 15 (23.8%) studies a whole-school day approach [36, 39, 40, 50, 56, 57, 61, 63, 68, 69, 72, 73, 75, 81, 83, 95], and one intervention (1.6%) [96] included an active homework component. Table 4 summarizes studies that report a positive impact on movement behaviours, cognitive/academic performance, physical wellbeing, and psychological outcomes, sorted by their methodological quality. These interventions encompassed a range of strategies, including physical activity sessions, environmental enhancements, teacher training, peer support, and educational resources.

Table 2 Definitions of the intervention strategies reported
Full size table
Table 3 Frequency of intervention strategies used across studies
Full size table
Table 4 Studies that reported a positive significant effect on movement behaviours, academic outcomes, physical health and/or psychological outcomes and methodological quality of the studies
Full size table

Intervention Effects on Movement Behaviours

Sixty-three articles (74%) described intervention effects on movement behaviours (self-reported and/or device measured) (Table 1, outcomes). Of these, 40 articles (47%) reported on device-measured physical activity (i.e., light- [LPA], moderate- [MPA], vigorous- [VPA], moderate- to vigorous-intensity [MVPA] physical activity). Sedentary time was reported in 31 articles (36.4%); of these, 20 (23.5%) used device-measured sedentary/sitting time. A descriptive summary of the number of intervention strategies and their impact on different outcomes is presented in Supplementary Table 3.

Sufficient data for meta-analysis were available for sedentary time, LPA, MPA, VPA, MVPA assessed during the whole day (Summary statistics used for calculation of standardized mean difference across the studies are presented in Supplementary Table 7). All meta-analyses showed non-significant effects: Sedentary time, SMD = -0.02 (95% CI: -0.14, 0.11), Fig. 2.A; LPA, SMD = -0.01 (95% CI: -0.08, 0.05), Fig. 2.B; MPA, SMD = 0.06 (95% CI: -0.09,0.22), Fig. 2.C; VPA, SMD = 0.08 (95% CI: -0.02, 0.18), Fig. 2.D; MVPA, SMD = 0.05 (95% CI: -0.01, 0.12), Fig. 2.E).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plots for the effect of school-based initiatives on device measured sedentary time (A), light intensity physical activity (B), moderate physical activity (C), vigorous physical activity (D), moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (E). Legend: Risk of bias: (SB) selection bias; (SD) study design; (C) confounder; (B) blinding; (DC) data collection; (W) withdrawal and (OR) overall risk

Full size image

Intervention Effects on Cognitive and Academic Outcomes

Cognitive and academic outcomes were measured in 12 articles (14.1%) which did not fulfill the inclusion criteria for meta-analyses. The most frequently explored outcomes were executive functions. Evidence of a positive impact was reported on working memory [52, 57, 64], inhibitory control [62], cognitive flexibility [47], verbal fluency [47], attention and concentration [47, 110], and on-task behaviour [66]. No effects were found on inhibitory control [72, 99], and working memory [99]. A positive intervention effect was found on health course grades [67], numeracy and reading performance [78] and academically-relevant social skills ratings (cooperation, assertion, academic competence) [67]. No effect was found on mathematical skills [72].

Intervention Effects on Physical Health Outcomes

Physical health related outcomes were assessed in 29 articles (34.1%). Meta analysis of 16 articles (18.8%) showed a statistically significant small effect on BMI (SMD= -0.09 [95% CI: -0.16, -0.02]) with a moderate level of heterogeneity and 56% of the articles were assessed with high-risk of bias; Fig. 3.A). For waist circumference, 5 articles (5.9%) provided necessary data for meta-analysis. A non-significant intervention effect was found (SMD = 0.09 [95% CI: -0.03, 0.21]; Fig. 3, B).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plots for the effect of school-based initiatives on body mass index (A) and waist circumference (B). Legend: Risk of bias: (SB) selection bias; (SD) study design; (C) confounder; (B) blinding; (DC) data collection; (W) withdrawal and (OR) overall risk

Full size image

Evidence of a positive effect was reported for blood pressure [48, 83, 84, 94], high-density lipoprotein (HDL) to total cholesterol ratio [84], and glucose [84]. No effects on body fat [33, 106], blood pressure [76] or musculoskeletal health [80] were found. Fitness-related outcomes were assessed in 19 articles (22.4%). Positive effects on cardiorespiratory fitness (e.g. increase distance run) [44, 48, 65, 72, 87, 92, 99], and muscular fitness (e.g. muscular endurance strength) were found [69, 70, 83, 87, 99]. No effects on cardiorespiratory fitness [33, 41, 61, 76, 82] and muscular fitness [41, 50, 65, 82, 112] were reported. Hippocampal metabolism was assessed [113], showing a significant intervention effect on N-acetylaspartate and glutamate + glutamine in the left hippocampus.

Intervention Effects on Psychological Outcomes

Psychological outcomes were assessed in 12 articles (14.1%), which did not fulfill the inclusion criteria for meta-analyses. Positive effects were found in: anxiety and self-esteem [87], social support [51, 76], wellbeing [41, 51, 54, 69], self-perception [114], and lower depressive symptoms in participants with elevated depressive symptoms at baseline [111]. No effects on wellbeing [73, 99] or on stress and internalization/externalization problems [99] were reported, and one study indicated that the relationship with classmates deteriorated in the intervention group [74]. Also, there were no effects on social cognitive variables for physical activity (i.e., self-efficacy, perceived environment, social support, behavioural strategies, outcome expectations and outcome expectancies related to physical activity) [103].

Methodological Quality

Of the included articles, 65% received an overall weak quality rating, 25% were rated as moderate, and 11% were considered strong quality (Supplementary Table 4). A breakdown of the methodological quality per article is shown in Table 5. Study design, data collection methods, confounders, withdrawals and dropout were assessed as strong in > 50% of the articles. Selection bias was considered weak in 45% of the articles. For articles that had a positive effect on an outcome reported in this review (n = 58) [68%], 16 were classified as strong, 17 as moderate, and 25 as weak (Table 4).

Table 5 Methodological quality assessment for each article
Full size table

Factors Relevant to the Implementation

At least one factor relevant to the implementation of the programs (implementation, mechanism of impact and/or context) was reported in 43 articles (50.5%). Specific components reported included fidelity (n = 26, 30.5%) [33, 34, 38, 45, 53, 57, 58, 60, 63, 66, 70, 73, 77, 82, 92, 99, 101, 102, 105, 107, 111, 115,116,117]. Fidelity was assessed based on adherence to the intervention protocol and consistency in delivery, of which 14 articles (16.4%) indicated that interventions were delivered as planned (> 60% of consistency with the original plan); participant responses (n = 25, 29.4%)) [33, 38, 46, 51, 53, 55,56,57, 67, 70, 73, 74, 77, 79, 88, 92, 101, 106, 107, 111, 115,116,117], where 20 articles (23.5%), indicated the majority of the participants enjoyed or participated in the intervention; dose (n = 18, 21.2%) [34, 45, 48, 57, 60, 63, 66, 70, 73, 77, 85, 87, 99, 101, 102, 105, 115, 117], of which 10 indicated that the intervention was delivered and received as planned (> 50% of the frequency and duration of the intervention was delivered); reach (n = 18, 21.2%) [33, 34, 45, 55, 60, 63, 64, 70, 88, 92, 93, 106, 107, 115,116,117], where 13 indicated that the intervention targeted the expected audience; context (n = 15, 17.6%) [33, 38, 42, 47, 48, 51, 74, 87, 99, 107, 115, 118], of which 4 indicated no adverse effects of the intervention, and 5 articles showed that the intervention needed some modifications (e.g. different devices, time for planning, resources); and adaptation was required in 6 studies (i.e. content and frequency adaptations) [34, 45, 63, 74, 77, 117].

Publication Bias

Funnel plots for MVPA, BMI and WC are presented in Supplementary material 6, and show little sign of asymmetry. In addition, the Egger’s tests for all three outcomes were not statistically significant, indicating absence of small-sample effects. There was little evidence of publication bias with pooled effect size estimates using the trim-and-fill method similar to the main findings for MVPA (SMD = 0.06 vs. 0.05), with overall interpretations of effects unchanged for BMI (SMD=-0.08 vs. -0.08) and WC (SMD = 1.46 vs.1.46).

Discussion

Our systematic review provided a narrative synthesis of the intervention strategies used within the secondary school settings to improve students’ movement behaviours throughout school-based initiatives and the factors related to intervention implementation, and a meta-analysis (where possible) of the effectiveness of school-based initiatives to increase physical activity and reduce sedentary time on adolescents’ movement behaviours, energy expenditure, cognitive/academic, behavioural and physical and psychological health outcomes. Intervention strategies that reported favourable effects on movement behaviours, cognitive/academic, physical and psychological outcomes tended to include physical activity sessions, environmental modifications, teacher training, peer support and/or educational resources. Despite some promising findings for BMI, the meta-analysis showed no significant effects of interventions on the total accumulated daily movement behaviours, assessed using accelerometers, and waist circumference.

Interventions incorporated a wide variety of strategies, with the majority being multicomponent. Previous reviews have concluded multicomponent interventions elicit greater effects on youth health and wellbeing compared to single component interventions [119], particularly those that use a whole-school approach [9]. However, it can be difficult to establish which strategies embedded within multicomponent interventions are most effective and may be context specific. Homework and recess time were seldom targeted in interventions. This is consistent with a recent review and meta-analysis of school-based recess interventions, which reported that just one of 43 interventions targeted secondary school students [120]. Physical activity sessions, educational resources, environmental modifications, peer-support, and teacher training were the most commonly used strategies, consistent with a previous review of school-based interventions to increase adolescent physical activity [16]. Although active lessons are commonly used and can have positive effects on lesson-time physical activity in primary/elementary school interventions [121], only eight of the 63 interventions in this review incorporated active lessons. There is clearly a need for evidence of the effectiveness of interventions involving active lessons, recess and lunch breaks and active homework.

Our meta-analyses revealed small positive effects of overall interventions on BMI; however, most articles were assessed with a high risk of bias. Results related to BMI are consistent with findings from a previous review indicating that school-based physical activity interventions result in a very small decrease in BMI z-score in children and adolescents [23]. We did not find significant effects for accelerometer-determined physical activity of any intensity. This is consistent with previous meta-analyses, which found that school-based physical activity interventions had small or no benefits on whole-day moderate-intensity physical activity levels of adolescents [15,16,17]. This review found few studies reported the impact on sedentary time and LPA, especially during school hours. It found a statistically significant effect for sitting and stepping time (data not shown, as two out the four studies reporting these data did not meet the inclusion criteria for analysis [i.e. randomised controlled trials]). The effect of school-based initiatives on movement behaviours may have been under-estimated as these initiatives could be more effective at reducing sedentary time and increasing LPA rather than higher intensity activity during school hours. Future research should consider assessing multiple movement behaviour intensities (i.e., sedentary time, LPA) with the appropriate devices [122].

The quality assessment of the studies showed different distributions of effectiveness between weak, moderate and strong quality. Further analyses showed no apparent differences in quality between studies that reported significant effects and those that did not for each outcome; however, only few studies were classified with low risk of bias. Only 43 articles (50.5%) reported factors relevant to the implementation of the programs. Therefore, with the lack of and inconsistencies in reporting implementation-relevant information, it is difficult to determine whether the interventions were sufficiently or appropriately implemented as intended. Insufficient equipment or supportive environments (e.g., standing desks), high dropout rates due to academic commitments, cancelled sessions due to unplanned activities, lack of time to plan and deliver, and programs not viewed as a priority were reported as factors that could influence intervention effectiveness. Evaluating factors related to implementation before and during the intervention, that allows researchers and schools to adapt and improve the implementation strategies to the school’s and students’ needs, could achieve better results [123].

Limitations of included studies were the high level of heterogeneity between outcome measures, and that only a small number of studies reported movement behaviours during school hours. It could be possible that interventions were effective during school hours, but effects were compensated for outside the school [124]. Future school-based interventions should consider (a) incorporating whole of school approaches (b) including additional outcomes such as academic performance and reporting movement behaviour outcomes for school hours and the whole day and multiple intensities, (c) reporting factors relevant to the implementation to assist in interpreting effectiveness.

Schools should be encouraged to develop and implement policies that support whole-of-school physical activity strategies. These policies could include providing teaching relief so teachers can receive professional development (e.g., to deliver active lessons in the classroom), and allocating space in the curriculum for additional physical activity sessions and delivery of educational resources.

Conclusions

While some intervention approaches for increasing adolescents’ physical activity and reducing sedentary time in secondary schools demonstrated promise (e.g. physical activity sessions, environmental modifications, teacher training, peer support, educational resources and/or active lesson strategies), small or non-significant effects were found in the meta-analyses. Future movement behaviour interventions in secondary schools should utilize a whole-school approach to beneficially change adolescents’ activity levels. Consistent reporting of implementation will increase understanding of how interventions effect outcomes.

Data Availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed in the current study will be supplied by the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Abbreviations

SMD:

Standardized mean difference

CI:

Confidence interval

MVPA:

Moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity

PE:

Physical education

PICOS:

Participants, Interventions, Comparisons, Outcomes, and Study design framework

RCTs:

Randomized controlled trials

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

LPA:

Light physical activity

MPA:

Moderate physical activity

VPA:

Vigorous physical activity

BMI:

Body mass index

HDL:

High-density lipoprotein

N:

Number

SED:

Sedentary behaviour

EE:

Energy expenditure

WC:

Waist circumference

CRF:

Cardiorespiratory fitness

SB:

Selection bias

SD:

Study design

C:

Confounder

B:

Blinding

DC:

Data collection

W:

Withdrawal

OR:

Overall risk

References

  1. Rodriguez-Ayllon M, Estévez-López F, Cadenas-Sanchez C, Gracia-Marco L, Lubans DR, Ortega FB, et al. Physical activity, sedentary Behaviour and Mental Health in Young people: a review of reviews. In: Pingitore A, Mastorci F, Vassalle C, editors. Adolescent health and wellbeing. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019. pp. 35–73.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  2. Poitras VJ, Gray CE, Borghese MM, Carson V, Chaput JP, Janssen I, et al. Systematic review of the relationships between objectively measured physical activity and health indicators in school-aged children and youth. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2016;41(6 Suppl 3):197–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Gunnell KE, Poitras VJ, LeBlanc A, Schibli K, Barbeau K, Hedayati N, et al. Physical activity and brain structure, brain function, and cognition in children and youth: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Ment Health Phys Act. 2019;16:105–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Liu M, Wu L, Ming Q. How does physical activity intervention improve Self-Esteem and Self-Concept in Children and adolescents? Evidence from a Meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(8):e0134804.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Mahar MT. Classroom-based physical activity and On-Task Behavior. Translational J Am Coll Sports Med. 2019;4(17).

  6. Watson A, Timperio A, Brown H, Best K, Hesketh KD. 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;14(1):114.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Carson V, Hunter S, Kuzik N, Gray CE, Poitras VJ, Chaput JP, et al. Systematic review of sedentary behaviour and health indicators in school-aged children and youth: an update. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2016;41(6 Suppl 3):240–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bull FC, Al-Ansari SS, Biddle S, Borodulin K, Buman MP, Cardon G, et al. World Health Organization 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54(24):1451–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. van Sluijs EMF, Ekelund U, Crochemore-Silva I, Guthold R, Ha A, Lubans D, et al. Physical activity behaviours in adolescence: current evidence and opportunities for intervention. Lancet. 2021;398(10298):429–42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Bauman AE, Petersen CB, Blond K, Rangul V, Hardy LL. The descriptive epidemiology of sedentary Behaviour. In: Leitzmann MF, Jochem C, Schmid D, editors. Sedentary Behaviour Epidemiology. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. pp. 73–106.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Arundell L, Salmon J, Koorts H, Contardo Ayala AM, Timperio A. Exploring when and how adolescents sit: cross-sectional analysis of activPAL-measured patterns of daily sitting time, bouts and breaks. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):653.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Hollis JL, Sutherland R, Williams AJ, Campbell E, Nathan N, Wolfenden L, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity levels in secondary school physical education lessons. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14(1):52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Hardman K. The world-wide survey of physical education in schools: findings, issues and strategies for a sustainable future. The fellows lecture (part 3). Br J Teach Phys Educ. 2001 //;32(2).

  14. Ridgers ND, Parrish A-M, Salmon J, Timperio A. School Recess Physical Activity interventions. The Routledge Handbook of Youth Physical Activity. Routledge; 2020. pp. 504–22.

  15. van de Kop JH, van Kernebeek WG, Otten RHJ, Toussaint HM, Verhoeff AP. School-based physical activity interventions in Prevocational adolescents: a systematic review and Meta-analyses. J Adolesc Health. 2019;65(2):185–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Borde R, Smith JJ, Sutherland R, Nathan N, Lubans DR. 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(4):476–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hynynen ST, van Stralen MM, Sniehotta FF, Araujo-Soares V, Hardeman W, Chinapaw MJ, et al. A systematic review of school-based interventions targeting physical activity and sedentary behaviour among older adolescents. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2016;9(1):22–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Love R, Adams J, van Sluijs EMF. Are school-based physical activity interventions effective and equitable? A meta-analysis of cluster randomized controlled trials with accelerometer-assessed activity. Obes Rev. 2019;20(6):859–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Morton KL, Atkin AJ, Corder K, Suhrcke M, van Sluijs EM. The school environment and adolescent physical activity and sedentary behaviour: a mixed-studies systematic review. Obes Rev. 2016;17(2):142–58.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Verstraeten R, Roberfroid D, Lachat C, Leroy JL, Holdsworth M, Maes L, et al. Effectiveness of preventive school-based obesity interventions in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012;96(2):415–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hollis JL, Sutherland R, Williams AJ, Campbell E, Nathan N, Wolfenden L et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity levels in secondary school physical education lessons. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Activity. 2017;14(1).

  22. Owen MB, Curry WB, Kerner C, Newson L, Fairclough SJ. The effectiveness of school-based physical activity interventions for adolescent girls: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev Med. 2017;105:237–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Neil-Sztramko SE, Caldwell H, Dobbins M. School-based physical activity programs for promoting physical activity and fitness in children and adolescents aged 6 to 18. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;9(9):CD007651.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Moore Graham F, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ: Br Med J. 2015 03/19/;350.

  25. Thomas BH, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Micucci S. A process for systematically reviewing the literature: providing the research evidence for public health nursing interventions. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2004;1(3):176–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Day SJ, Altman DG. Statistics notes: blinding in clinical trials and other studies. BMJ 2000 Aug 19–26;321(7259):504.

  27. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–58. 2002/06/15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Higgins JPTTJ, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). In: Cochrane, editor.; 2021.

  29. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the behavioral sciences. Elsevier Science; 2013.

  30. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Tricco AC, et al. Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Sterne JAC, Egger M, Smith GD. Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis. BMJ. 2001;323(7304):101.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2000;56(2):455–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Peralta LR, Jones RA, Okely AD. Promoting healthy lifestyles among adolescent boys: the Fitness Improvement and Lifestyle Awareness Program RCT. Prev Med. 2009;48(6):537–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Sutherland R, Campbell E, McLaughlin M, Nathan N, Wolfenden L, Lubans DR, et al. Scale-up of the physical activity 4 everyone (PA4E1) intervention in secondary schools: 12-month implementation outcomes from a cluster randomized controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020;17(1):100.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Haerens L, Deforche B, Maes L, Cardon G, Stevens V, De Bourdeaudhuij I. Evaluation of a 2-year physical activity and healthy eating intervention in middle school children. Health Educ Res. 2006;21(6):911–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Harrington DM, Davies MJ, Bodicoat DH, Charles JM, Chudasama YV, Gorely T, et al. Effectiveness of the ‘Girls active’ school-based physical activity programme: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2018;15(1):40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Leme ACB, Baranowski T, Thompson D, Nicklas T, Philippi ST. Sustained impact of the Healthy Habits, Healthy Girls - Brazil school-based randomized controlled trial for adolescents living in low-income communities. Prev Med Rep. 2018;10((Thompson D.) Department of Pediatrics, USDA/Children’s Nutrition Research Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States):346 – 52.

  38. Okely AD, Lubans DR, Morgan PJ, Cotton W, Peralta L, Miller J, et al. Promoting physical activity among adolescent girls: the girls in Sport group randomized trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14(1):81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Sebire SJ, Jago R, Banfield K, Edwards MJ, Campbell R, Kipping R, et al. Results of a feasibility cluster randomized controlled trial of a peer-led school-based intervention to increase the physical activity of adolescent girls (PLAN-A). Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2018;15(1):50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Schofield L, Mummery WK, Schofield G. Effects of a controlled pedometer-intervention trial for low-active adolescent girls. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37(8):1414–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Murphy J, Sweeney MR, McGrane B. The effect of a games-based intervention on wellbeing in adolescent girls. Health Educ J. 2022 2022/06/01;81(4):463–78.

  42. Bell SL, Audrey S, Cooper AR, Noble S, Campbell R. Lessons from a peer-led obesity prevention programme in English schools. Health Promot Int. 2017;32(2):250–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Kariippanon KE, Cliff DP, Okely AD, Parrish AM. Flexible learning spaces reduce sedentary time in adolescents. J Sci Med Sport. 2019;22(8):918–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Torbeyns T, de Geus B, Bailey S, Decroix L, Van Cutsem J, De Pauw K, et al. Bike desks in the Classroom: Energy Expenditure, Physical Health, Cognitive Performance, Brain Functioning, and academic performance. J Phys Act Health. 2017;14(6):429–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Sutherland R, Campbell E, McLaughlin M, Nathan N, Wolfenden L, Lubans DR, et al. Scale-up of the physical activity 4 everyone (PA4E1) intervention in secondary schools: 24-month implementation and cost outcomes from a cluster randomized controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021;18(1):137.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Costigan SA, Ridgers ND, Eather N, Plotnikoff RC, Harris N, Lubans DR. Exploring the impact of high intensity interval training on adolescents’ objectively measured physical activity: findings from a randomized controlled trial. J Sports Sci. 2018;36(10):1087–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Subramanian SK, Sharma VK, Arunachalam V, Radhakrishnan K, Ramamurthy S. Effect of structured and unstructured physical activity training on cognitive functions in adolescents - a Randomized Control Trial. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9(11):CC04–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. James ML, Christian D, Scott SC, Todd CE, Stratton G, Demmler J, et al. Active children through individual vouchers evaluation: a mixed-method RCT. Am J Prev Med. 2020;58(2):232–43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Bogart LM, Elliott MN, Cowgill BO, Klein DJ, Hawes-Dawson J, Uyeda K et al. Two-year BMI outcomes from a School-based intervention for Nutrition and Exercise: a Randomized Trial. Pediatrics. 2016;137(5).

  50. Lubans DR, Morgan PJ, Callister R. Potential moderators and mediators of intervention effects in an obesity prevention program for adolescent boys from disadvantaged schools. J Sci Med Sport. 2012;15(6):519–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Corder K, Brown HE, Schiff A, van Sluijs EM. Feasibility study and pilot cluster-randomized controlled trial of the GoActive intervention aiming to promote physical activity among adolescents: outcomes and lessons learnt. BMJ Open. 2016;6(11):e012335.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Budde H, Voelcker-Rehage C, Pietrassyk-Kendziorra S, Machado S, Ribeiro P, Arafat AM. Steroid hormones in the saliva of adolescents after different exercise intensities and their influence on working memory in a school setting. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2010;35(3):382–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Cui Z, Shah S, Yan L, Pan Y, Gao A, Shi X et al. Effect of a school-based peer education intervention on physical activity and sedentary behaviour in Chinese adolescents: a pilot study. BMJ Open. 2012;2(3).

  54. Altunkurek SZ, Bebis H. The effects of wellness coaching on the wellness and health behaviors of early adolescents. Public Health Nurs. 2019;36(4):488–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Aceves-Martins M, Llaurado E, Tarro L, Morina D, Papell-Garcia I, Prades-Tena J, et al. A School-Based, Peer-Led, Social Marketing intervention to engage Spanish adolescents in a healthy lifestyle (we are cool-Som La Pera Study): a parallel-cluster Randomized Controlled Study. Child Obes. 2017;13(4):300–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Corepal R, Best P, O’Neill R, Kee F, Badham J, Dunne L, et al. A feasibility study of ‘The StepSmart Challenge’ to promote physical activity in adolescents. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2019;5(1):132.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Parrish AM, Trost SG, Howard SJ, Batterham M, Cliff D, Salmon J, et al. Evaluation of an intervention to reduce adolescent sitting time during the school day: the ‘Stand up for Health’ randomized controlled trial. J Sci Med Sport. 2018;21(12):1244–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Tymms PB, Curtis SE, Routen AC, Thomson KH, Bolden DS, Bock S, et al. Clustered randomized controlled trial of two education interventions designed to increase physical activity and wellbeing of secondary school students: the MOVE project. BMJ Open. 2016;6(1):e009318.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Dewar DL, Morgan PJ, Plotnikoff RC, Okely AD, Collins CE, Batterham M, et al. The nutrition and enjoyable activity for teen girls study: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med. 2013;45(3):313–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Hollis JL, Sutherland R, Campbell L, Morgan PJ, Lubans DR, Nathan N, et al. Effects of a ‘school-based’ physical activity intervention on adiposity in adolescents from economically disadvantaged communities: secondary outcomes of the ‘Physical activity 4 everyone’ RCT. Int J Obes (Lond). 2016;40(10):1486–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Suchert V, Isensee B, Sargent J, Weisser B, Hanewinkel R. Lauft. Study G. prospective effects of pedometer use and class competitions on physical activity in youth: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Prev Med. 2015;81:399–404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Ludyga S, Puhse U, Lucchi S, Marti J, Gerber M. Immediate and sustained effects of intermittent exercise on inhibitory control and task-related heart rate variability in adolescents. J Sci Med Sport. 2019;22(1):96–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Barbosa Filho VC, da Silva KS, Mota J, Beck C, da Silva Lopes A. A physical activity intervention for Brazilian students from low Human Development Index areas: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. J Phys Act Health. 2016;13(11):1174–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Ludyga S, Gerber M, Kamijo K, Brand S, Puhse U. The effects of a school-based exercise program on neurophysiological indices of working memory operations in adolescents. J Sci Med Sport. 2018;21(8):833–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Kolle E, Solberg RB, Safvenbom R, Dyrstad SM, Berntsen S, Resaland GK, et al. The effect of a school-based intervention on physical activity, cardiorespiratory fitness and muscle strength: the School in Motion Cluster randomized trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020;17(1):154.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Mavilidi MF, Mason C, Leahy AA, Kennedy SG, Eather N, Hillman CH, et al. Effect of a time-efficient physical activity intervention on Senior School Students’ On-Task Behaviour and subjective vitality: the ‘Burn 2 learn’ Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial. Educ Psychol Rev. 2021;33(1):299–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Melnyk BM, Jacobson D, Kelly S, Belyea M, Shaibi G, Small L, et al. Promoting healthy lifestyles in high school adolescents: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med. 2013;45(4):407–15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Knebel MTG, Borgatto AF, Lopes MVV, Dos Santos PC, Matias TS, Narciso FV, et al. Mediating role of screen media use on adolescents’ total sleep time: a cluster-randomized controlled trial for physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Child Care Health Dev. 2020;46(3):381–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Lubans DR, Smith JJ, Morgan PJ, Beauchamp MR, Miller A, Lonsdale C, et al. Mediators of psychological wellbeing in adolescent boys. J Adolesc Health. 2016;58(2):230–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Andrade S, Lachat C, Ochoa-Aviles A, Verstraeten R, Huybregts L, Roberfroid D, et al. A school-based intervention improves physical fitness in Ecuadorian adolescents: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014;11:153.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Gammon C, Morton K, Atkin A, Corder K, Daly-Smith A, Quarmby T, et al. Introducing physically active lessons in UK secondary schools: feasibility study and pilot cluster-randomized controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2019;9(5):e025080.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Tarp J, Domazet SL, Froberg K, Hillman CH, Andersen LB, Bugge A. Effectiveness of a School-based physical activity intervention on cognitive performance in Danish adolescents: LCoMotion-Learning, Cognition and Motion - A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(6):e0158087.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Corder K, Sharp SJ, Jong ST, Foubister C, Brown HE, Wells EK, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the GoActive intervention to increase physical activity among UK adolescents: a cluster randomized controlled trial. PLoS Med. 2020;17(7):e1003210.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Verloigne M, Ridgers ND, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Cardon G. Effect and process evaluation of implementing standing desks in primary and secondary schools in Belgium: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2018;15(1):94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. van Woudenberg TJ, Bevelander KE, Burk WJ, Smit CR, Buijs L, Buijzen M. A randomized controlled trial testing a social network intervention to promote physical activity among adolescents. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):542.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Carlin A, Murphy MH, Nevill A, Gallagher AM. Effects of a peer-led walking in ScHools intervention (the WISH study) on physical activity levels of adolescent girls: a cluster randomized pilot study. Trials. 2018;19(1):31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Kennedy SG, Smith JJ, Morgan PJ, Peralta LR, Hilland TA, Eather N, et al. Implementing resistance training in secondary schools: a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018;50(1):62–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Solberg RB, Steene-Johannessen J, Anderssen SA, Ekelund U, Safvenbom R, Haugen T, et al. Effects of a school-based physical activity intervention on academic performance in 14-year old adolescents: a cluster randomized controlled trial - the School in Motion study. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):871.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Sudholz B, Timperio A, Ridgers ND, Dunstan DW, Baldock R, Holland B, et al. The impact and feasibility of introducing height-adjustable desks on adolescents’ sitting in a secondary School Classroom. AIMS Public Health. 2016;3(2):274–87.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Contardo Ayala AM, Sudholz B, Salmon J, Dunstan DW, Ridgers ND, Arundell L, et al. The impact of height-adjustable desks and prompts to break-up classroom sitting on adolescents’ energy expenditure, adiposity markers and perceived musculoskeletal discomfort. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(9):e0203938.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Ghammam R, Maatoug J, Zammit N, Kebaili R, Boughammoura L, Al’Absi M, et al. Long term effect of a school based intervention to prevent chronic diseases in Tunisia, 2009–2015. Afr Health Sci. 2017;17(4):1137–48.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Yli-Piipari S, Layne T, McCollins T, Knox T. The Impact of Classroom Physical Activity Breaks on Middle School Students’ Health-Related Fitness: An Xbox One Kinetic Delivered 4-Week Randomized Controlled Trial. JTRM in Kinesiology; 2016.

  83. Yang Y, Kang B, Lee EY, Yang HK, Kim HS, Lim SY, et al. Effect of an obesity prevention program focused on motivating environments in childhood: a school-based prospective study. Int J Obes (Lond). 2017;41(7):1027–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Knox GJ, Baker JS, Davies B, Rees A, Morgan K, Cooper SM, et al. Effects of a novel school-based cross-curricular physical activity intervention on cardiovascular disease risk factors in 11- to 14-year-olds: the activity knowledge circuit. Am J Health Promot. 2012 Nov-Dec;27(2):75–83.

  85. Chen S, Rosenkranz RR, McLoughlin GM, Vazou S, Lanningham-Foster L, Gentile DA et al. Evaluating the implementation and effectiveness of the SWITCH-MS: an Ecological, multi-component adolescent obesity Prevention intervention. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(15).

  86. Haapala HL, Hirvensalo MH, Kulmala J, Hakonen H, Kankaanpaa A, Laine K, et al. Changes in physical activity and sedentary time in the Finnish schools on the move program: a quasi-experimental study. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2017;27(11):1442–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Bonhauser M, Fernandez G, Puschel K, Yanez F, Montero J, Thompson B, et al. Improving physical fitness and emotional wellbeing in adolescents of low socioeconomic status in Chile: results of a school-based controlled trial. Health Promot Int. 2005;20(2):113–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Louise Bush P, Laberge S, Laforest S. Physical activity promotion among underserved adolescents: make it fun, easy, and popular. Health Promot Pract. 2010;11(3 Suppl):79S–87S.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Ardic A, Erdogan S. The effectiveness of the COPE healthy lifestyles TEEN program: a school-based intervention in middle school adolescents with 12-month follow-up. J Adv Nurs. 2017;73(6):1377–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Lazorick S, Fang X, Hardison GT, Crawford Y. Improved body Mass Index measures following a Middle School-based obesity intervention-the MATCH Program. J Sch Health. 2015;85(10):680–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Yu H, Kulinna PH, Mulhearn SC. The effectiveness of equipment provisions on rural Middle School Students’ physical activity during lunch recess. J Phys Act Health. 2021;18(3):287–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Kennedy SG, Smith JJ, Estabrooks PA, Nathan N, Noetel M, Morgan PJ, et al. Evaluating the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance of the resistance training for teens program. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021;18(1):122.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Lubans DR, Sheaman C, Callister R. Exercise adherence and intervention effects of two school-based resistance training programs for adolescents. Prev Med 2010 Jan-Feb;50(1–2):56–62.

  94. Amoah J, Said S, Rampal L, Manaf R, Ibrahim N, Owusu-Agyei S, et al. Effects of a school-based intervention to reduce cardiovascular disease risk factors among secondary school students: a cluster-randomized, controlled trial. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(11):e0259581.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. Ahmed KR, Kolbe-Alexander T, Khan A. Effectiveness of a school-based intervention on physical activity and screen time among adolescents. J Sci Med Sport. 2022;25(3):242–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Andrade S, Verloigne M, Cardon G, Kolsteren P, Ochoa-Aviles A, Verstraeten R, et al. School-based intervention on healthy behaviour among Ecuadorian adolescents: effect of a cluster-randomized controlled trial on screen-time. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1):942.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Barbosa Filho VC, Bandeira ADS, Minatto G, Linard JG, Silva JAD, Costa RMD, et al. Effect of a Multicomponent intervention on lifestyle factors among Brazilian adolescents from low Human Development Index areas: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(2):267.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. Haerens L, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Maes L, Cardon G, Deforche B. School-based randomized controlled trial of a physical activity intervention among adolescents. J Adolesc Health. 2007;40(3):258–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Lubans DR, Smith JJ, Eather N, Leahy AA, Morgan PJ, Lonsdale C et al. Time-efficient intervention to improve older adolescents’ cardiorespiratory fitness: findings from the ‘Burn 2 Learn’ cluster randomized controlled trial. Br J Sports Med. 2020 Dec 21.

  100. Sudholz B, Contardo Ayala AM, Timperio A, Dunstan DW, Conroy DE, Abbott G et al. The impact of height-adjustable desks and classroom prompts on classroom sitting time, social, and motivational factors among adolescents. J Sport Health Sci. 2020 May 20.

  101. Sutherland R, Reeves P, Campbell E, Lubans DR, Morgan PJ, Nathan N, et al. Cost effectiveness of a multi-component school-based physical activity intervention targeting adolescents: the ‘Physical activity 4 everyone’ cluster randomized trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2016;13:94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  102. Sutherland RL, Campbell EM, Lubans DR, Morgan PJ, Nathan NK, Wolfenden L, et al. The physical activity 4 everyone cluster Randomized Trial: 2-Year outcomes of a School Physical activity intervention among adolescents. Am J Prev Med. 2016;51(2):195–205.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Dewar DL, Morgan PJ, Plotnikoff RC, Okely AD, Batterham M, Lubans DR. Exploring changes in physical activity, sedentary behaviors and hypothesized mediators in the NEAT girls group randomized controlled trial. J Sci Med Sport. 2014;17(1):39–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Lubans DR, Morgan PJ, Aguiar EJ, Callister R. Randomized controlled trial of the physical activity leaders (PALs) program for adolescent boys from disadvantaged secondary schools. Prev Med. 2011;52(3/4):239–46.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Lubans DR, Morgan PJ, Okely AD, Dewar D, Collins CE, Batterham M, et al. Preventing obesity among adolescent girls: one-year outcomes of the Nutrition and enjoyable activity for Teen girls (NEAT girls) Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2012;166(9):821–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Smith JJ, Morgan PJ, Plotnikoff RC, Dally KA, Salmon J, Okely AD, et al. Smart-phone obesity prevention trial for adolescent boys in low-income communities: the ATLAS RCT. Pediatrics. 2014;134(3):e723–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Leme AC, Lubans DR, Guerra PH, Dewar D, Toassa EC, Philippi ST. Preventing obesity among Brazilian adolescent girls: six-month outcomes of the Healthy habits, Healthy Girls-Brazil school-based randomized controlled trial. Prev Med. 2016;86:77–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Lubans DR, Smith JJ, Plotnikoff RC, Dally KA, Okely AD, Salmon J, et al. Assessing the sustained impact of a school-based obesity prevention program for adolescent boys: the ATLAS Cluster randomized controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2016;13:92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. Bandeira ADS, Silva KS, Bastos JLD, Silva DAS, Lopes ADS, Barbosa Filho VC. Psychosocial mediators of screen time reduction after an intervention for students from schools in vulnerable areas: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. J Sci Med Sport. 2020;23(3):264–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Laberge S, Bush PL, Chagnon M. Effects of a culturally tailored physical activity promotion program on selected self-regulation skills and attitudes in adolescents of an underserved, multiethnic milieu. Am J Health Promot. 2012;26(4):e105–15.

  111. Melnyk BM, Jacobson D, Kelly SA, Belyea MJ, Shaibi GQ, Small L, et al. Twelve-Month effects of the COPE Healthy lifestyles TEEN Program on overweight and depressive symptoms in High School adolescents. J Sch Health. 2015;85(12):861–70.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  112. Lubans DR, Morgan PJ, Dewar D, Collins CE, Plotnikoff RC, Okely AD, et al. The Nutrition and enjoyable activity for Teen girls (NEAT girls) randomized controlled trial for adolescent girls from disadvantaged secondary schools: rationale, study protocol, and baseline results. BMC Public Health. 2010;10(1):652.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. Valkenborghs SR, Hillman CH, Al-Iedani O, Nilsson M, Smith JJ, Leahy AA, et al. Effect of high-intensity interval training on hippocampal metabolism in older adolescents. Psychophysiology. 2022;59(11):e14090.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. Morgan PJ, Saunders KL, Lubans DR. Improving physical self-perception in adolescent boys from disadvantaged schools: psychological outcomes from the physical activity leaders randomized controlled trial. Pediatr Obes. 2012;7(3):e27–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Gorely T, Harrington DM, Bodicoat DH, Davies MJ, Khunti K, Sherar LB, et al. Process evaluation of the school-based girls active programme. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1187.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  116. Sebire SJ, Banfield K, Jago R, Edwards MJ, Campbell R, Kipping R, et al. A process evaluation of the PLAN-A intervention (peer-Led physical activity iNtervention for adolescent girls). BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1203.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  117. Kennedy SG, Peralta LR, Lubans DR, Foweather L, Smith JJ. Implementing a school-based physical activity program: process evaluation and impact on teachers’ confidence, perceived barriers and self-perceptions. Phys Educ Sport Peda. 2019;24(3):233–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Lubans D, Morgan P, Okely A, Dewar D, Collins C, Batterham M, et al. Preventing obesity among adolescent girls: outcomes of the nutrition and enjoyable activity for teen girls cluster randomized controlled trial. J Sci Med Sport. 2012;15:332–S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Messing S, Rutten A, Abu-Omar K, Ungerer-Rohrich U, Goodwin L, Burlacu I et al. How can physical activity be promoted among children and adolescents? A systematic review of reviews across settings. Front Public Health. 2019 2019;7(55):55.

  120. Parrish AM, Chong KH, Moriarty AL, Batterham M, Ridgers ND. Interventions to Change School recess activity levels in children and adolescents: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2020;50(12):2145–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Norris E, van Steen T, Direito A, Stamatakis E. Physically active lessons in schools and their impact on physical activity, educational, health and cognition outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54(14):826–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Ridgers ND, Salmon J, Ridley K, O’Connell E, Arundell L, Timperio A. Agreement between activPAL and ActiGraph for assessing children’s sedentary time. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9(1):15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  123. Cassar S, Salmon J, Timperio A, Naylor PJ, van Nassau F, Contardo Ayala AM, et al. Adoption, implementation and sustainability of school-based physical activity and sedentary behaviour interventions in real-world settings: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2019;16(1):120.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  124. Beets MW, Okely A, Weaver RG, Webster C, Lubans D, Brusseau T, et al. The theory of expanded, extended, and enhanced opportunities for youth physical activity promotion. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2016;13(1):120.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  125. Barbosa Filho VC, da Silva KS, Mota J, Vieira NFC, Gubert FA, Lopes AdS. For whom was it effective? Moderators of the effect of a school-based intervention on potential physical activity determinants among Brazilian students. Prev Med. 2017;97:80–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Bush PL, Laberge S, Laforest S. Physical activity promotion among underserved adolescents: ‘make it fun, easy, and popular’. Health Promot Pract. 2010;11(3S):79S–87S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. Sutherland R, Campbell E, Lubans DR, Morgan PJ, Okely AD, Nathan N, et al. Physical activity 4 everyone’ school-based intervention to prevent decline in adolescent physical activity levels: 12 month (mid-intervention) report on a cluster randomized trial. Br J Sports Med. 2016;50(8):488–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This study is supported by an NHMRC (National Health and Medical Research Council) Investigator Grant (APP 1176885).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia

    Ana María Contardo Ayala, Kate Parker, Emiliano Mazzoli, Natalie Lander, Nicola D. Ridgers, Anna Timperio, Gavin Abbott, Harriet Koorts & Jo Salmon

  2. Alliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition and Activity (ARENA), Allied Health & Human Performance, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, , Australia

    Nicola D. Ridgers

  3. Centre for Active Living and Learning, College of Human and Social Futures, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia

    David R. Lubans

  4. School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia

    Ana María Contardo Ayala, Kate Parker, Natalie Lander, Anna Timperio, Gavin Abbott, Harriet Koorts & Jo Salmon

  5. School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia

    Emiliano Mazzoli

  6. Faculty of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

    David R. Lubans

  7. Hunter Medical Research institute, New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia

    David R. Lubans

Authors
  1. Ana María Contardo Ayala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kate Parker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emiliano Mazzoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Natalie Lander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nicola D. Ridgers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Anna Timperio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. David R. Lubans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Gavin Abbott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Harriet Koorts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Jo Salmon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JS, AMC, KP, EM, NL, DL, HK, NDR, and AT conceptualized and designed the study. AMC and KP searched the databases, screened the titles and abstracts of all identified studies, obtained the full-text papers of the relevant studies, applied the selection criteria, collected the data, entered the results, and assessed for study quality. EM cross-checked for accuracy of full text selection, data entry and study quality. AMC and GA performed and interpreted the statistical analysis. AMC and KP wrote the initial draft manuscript. AMC, JS, KP, EM, AT, NL, DL, HK, NDR, and GA revised and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana María Contardo Ayala.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

AMCA and EM are supported by a NHMRC Investigator Grant (APP 1176885). NDR is supported by a National Heart Foundation of Australia Future Leader Fellowship (ID 101895). DRL is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) senior Research Fellowship (APP1154507). JS is supported by a Leadership Level 2 Fellowship, NHMRC (APP 1176885). Other authors report no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Contardo Ayala, A.M., Parker, K., Mazzoli, E. et al. Effectiveness of Intervention Strategies to Increase Adolescents’ Physical Activity and Reduce Sedentary Time in Secondary School Settings, Including Factors Related to Implementation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Med - Open 10, 25 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-024-00688-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-024-00688-7

Keywords