How Can Physical Activity Be Promoted Among Children and Adolescents? A Systematic Review of Reviews Across Settings

Prevention of childhood obesity is an international public health priority given the significant impact of obesity on acute and chronic diseases, general health, development and well-being. The international evidence base for strategies that governments, communities and families can implement to prevent obesity, and promote health, has been accumulating but remains unclear. This review primarily aims to update the previous Cochrane review of childhood obesity prevention research and determine the effectiveness of evaluated interventions intended to prevent obesity in children, assessed by change in Body Mass Index (BMI). Secondary aims were to examine the characteristics of the programs and strategies to answer the questions "What works for whom, why and for what cost?" The searches were re-run in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO and CINAHL in March 2010 and searched relevant websites. Non-English language papers were included and experts were contacted. The review includes data from childhood obesity prevention studies that used a controlled study design (with or without randomisation). Studies were included if they evaluated interventions, policies or programs in place for twelve weeks or more. If studies were randomised at a cluster level, 6 clusters were required. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies.  Data was extracted on intervention implementation, cost, equity and outcomes. Outcome measures were grouped according to whether they measured adiposity, physical activity (PA)-related behaviours or diet-related behaviours.  Adverse outcomes were recorded. A meta-analysis was conducted using available BMI or standardised BMI (zBMI) score data with subgroup analysis by age group (0-5, 6-12, 13-18 years, corresponding to stages of developmental and childhood settings). This review includes 55 studies (an additional 36 studies found for this update). The majority of studies targeted children aged 6-12 years.  The meta-analysis included 37 studies of 27,946 children and demonstrated that programmes were effective at reducing adiposity, although not all individual interventions were effective, and there was a high level of observed heterogeneity (I(2)=82%).  Overall, children in the intervention group had a standardised mean difference in adiposity (measured as BMI or zBMI) of -0.15kg/m(2) (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.21 to -0.09).  Intervention effects by age subgroups were -0.26kg/m(2) (95% CI:-0.53 to 0.00) (0-5 years), -0.15kg/m(2) (95% CI -0.23 to -0.08) (6-12 years), and -0.09kg/m(2) (95% CI -0.20 to 0.03) (13-18 years). Heterogeneity was apparent in all three age groups and could not explained by randomisation status or the type, duration or setting of the intervention.  Only eight studies reported on adverse effects and no evidence of adverse outcomes such as unhealthy dieting practices, increased prevalence of underweight or body image sensitivities was found.  Interventions did not appear to increase health inequalities although this was examined in fewer studies. We found strong evidence to support beneficial effects of child obesity prevention programmes on BMI, particularly for programmes targeted to children aged six to 12 years. However, given the unexplained heterogeneity and the likelihood of small study bias, these findings must be interpreted cautiously. A broad range of programme components were used in these studies and whilst it is not possible to distinguish which of these components contributed most to the beneficial effects observed, our synthesis indicates the following to be promising policies and strategies:·         school curriculum that includes healthy eating, physical activity and body image·         increased sessions for physical activity and the development of fundamental movement skills throughout the school week·         improvements in nutritional quality of the food supply in schools·         environments and cultural practices that support children eating healthier foods and being active throughout each day·         support for teachers and other staff to implement health promotion strategies and activities (e.g. professional development, capacity building activities)·         parent support and home activities that encourage children to be more active, eat more nutritious foods and spend less time in screen based activitiesHowever, study and evaluation designs need to be strengthened, and reporting extended to capture process and implementation factors, outcomes in relation to measures of equity, longer term outcomes, potential harms and costs.Childhood obesity prevention research must now move towards identifying how effective intervention components can be embedded within health, education and care systems and achieve long term sustainable impacts.  

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 1.9 million deaths worldwide are attributable to physical inactivity and at least 2.6 million deaths are a result of being overweight or obese. In addition, WHO estimates that physical inactivity causes 10% to 16% of cases each of breast cancer, colon, and rectal cancers as well as type 2 diabetes, and 22% of coronary heart disease and the burden of these and other chronic diseases has rapidly increased in recent decades. The purpose of this systematic review was to summarize the evidence of the effectiveness of school-based interventions in promoting physical activity and fitness in children and adolescents. The search strategy included searching several databases to October 2011. In addition, reference lists of included articles and background papers were reviewed for potentially relevant studies, as well as references from relevant Cochrane reviews. Primary authors of included studies were contacted as needed for additional information. To be included, the intervention had to be relevant to public health practice (focused on health promotion activities), not conducted by physicians, implemented, facilitated, or promoted by staff in local public health units, implemented in a school setting and aimed at increasing physical activity, included all school-attending children, and be implemented for a minimum of 12 weeks. In addition, the review was limited to randomized controlled trials and those that reported on outcomes for children and adolescents (aged 6 to 18 years). Primary outcomes included: rates of moderate to vigorous physical activity during the school day, time engaged in moderate to vigorous physical activity during the school day, and time spent watching television. Secondary outcomes related to physical health status measures including: systolic and diastolic blood pressure, blood cholesterol, body mass index (BMI), maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), and pulse rate. Standardized tools were used by two independent reviewers to assess each study for relevance and for data extraction. In addition, each study was assessed for risk of bias as specified in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Where discrepancies existed, discussion occurred until consensus was reached. The results were summarized narratively due to wide variations in the populations, interventions evaluated, and outcomes measured. In the original review, 13,841 records were identified and screened, 302 studies were assessed for eligibility, and 26 studies were included in the review. There was some evidence that school-based physical activity interventions had a positive impact on four of the nine outcome measures. Specifically positive effects were observed for duration of physical activity, television viewing, VO2 max, and blood cholesterol. Generally, school-based interventions had little effect on physical activity rates, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, BMI, and pulse rate. At a minimum, a combination of printed educational materials and changes to the school curriculum that promote physical activity resulted in positive effects.In this update, given the addition of three new inclusion criteria (randomized design, all school-attending children invited to participate, minimum 12-week intervention) 12 of the original 26 studies were excluded. In addition, studies published between July 2007 and October 2011 evaluating the effectiveness of school-based physical interventions were identified and if relevant included. In total an additional 2378 titles were screened of which 285 unique studies were deemed potentially relevant. Of those 30 met all relevance criteria and have been included in this update. This update includes 44 studies and represents complete data for 36,593 study participants. Duration of interventions ranged from 12 weeks to six years.Generally, the majority of studies included in this update, despite being randomized controlled trials, are, at a minimum, at moderate risk of bias. The results therefore must be interpreted with caution. Few changes in outcomes were observed in this update with the exception of blood cholesterol and physical activity rates. For example blood cholesterol was no longer positively impacted upon by school-based physical activity interventions. However, there was some evidence to suggest that school-based physical activity interventions led to an improvement in the proportion of children who engaged in moderate to vigorous physical activity during school hours (odds ratio (OR) 2.74, 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.01 to 3.75). Improvements in physical activity rates were not observed in the original review. Children and adolescents exposed to the intervention also spent more time engaged in moderate to vigorous physical activity (with results across studies ranging from five to 45 min more), spent less time watching television (results range from five to 60 min less per day), and had improved VO2max (results across studies ranged from 1.6 to 3.7 mL/kg per min). However, the overall conclusions of this update do not differ significantly from those reported in the original review. The evidence suggests the ongoing implementation of school-based physical activity interventions at this time, given the positive effects on behavior and one physical health status measure. However, given these studies are at a minimum of moderate risk of bias, and the magnitude of effect is generally small, these results should be interpreted cautiously. Additional research on the long-term impact of these interventions is needed.