4.6 Review

Effectiveness of school-based physical activity programmes on cardiorespiratory fitness in children: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
Volume 52, Issue 19, Pages 1234-+

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2017-097600

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport [FPU14/01370, FPU13/03137]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To conduct a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials aimed at testing whether school-based physical activity programmes improve cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) in children. Design Systematic review with meta-analysis. Data sources Using keywords, we performed a computerised search in five databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and SportDiscus. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Studies that assessed the effectiveness of school-based physical activity programmes on improving CRF in children (3-12 years old). We selected interventions that included an additional physical activity programme and not only a physical activity educational component. The reference lists of selected full-text articles and systematic reviews were also searched for relevant studies. Pooled effect size (Hedges' g) was calculated assuming a random-effects model. Results Twenty trials with 7287 healthy children aged 3-12 years were included in the meta-analysis. School-based physical activity interventions with aerobic games and activities were associated with a significant small increase in CRF (Hedges' g=0.22; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.30; p<0.001). Based on subgroup analysis, the increase in CRF was significant in girls (Hedges' g=0.25; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.37; p<0.001), but not in boys (Hedges' g=0.02; 95% CI -0.10 to 0.14; p=0.731). Summary Moderate quality evidence supports the effectiveness of school-based physical activity interventions on improving CRF in children.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available