This mixed-methods study aimed to determine the feasibility of incorporating movement breaks into university classes in terms of acceptability (disruption, engagement, satisfaction), practicality (ease of scheduling and conducting breaks) and efficacy (sedentary time, concentration, alertness, enjoyment). Movement breaks of five to 10 min duration were scheduled after 20 min of sedentary time during 2-h classes. Classes without movement breaks were used as a comparison. Data were collected using surveys, objective physical activity monitoring and focus group interviews of students (n = 85) and tutors (n = 6). Descriptive statistics (quantitative data) and independent coding and thematic analysis (qualitative data) were completed. Students (mean age 23 ± 2 years, 69% female) actively engaged in movement breaks with no adverse events. Movement breaks were perceived to be beneficial for concentration, engagement and productivity. Timing of the break was perceived to be important to enhance the benefit and reduce disruption. Students preferred outdoor or competitive movement breaks. Students spent 13 min less time sitting (95%CI 10 to 17), took 834 more steps (95%CI 675 to 994) and had higher levels of concentration, alertness and enjoyment (p < 0.001) in classes with movement breaks compared to classes without. Classroom movement breaks are feasible and may be considered for incorporation into university classes to reduce sedentary behaviour and increase physical activity, alertness, concentration and enjoyment.

Background: University students are mostly sedentary in tertiary education settings which may be detrimental to their health and learning. This review aimed to examine the feasibility and efficacy of classroom movement breaks (CMB) and physically active learning (PAL) on physical and cognitive outcomes in university students in the tertiary setting. Methods: Five electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsychINFO, and PubMed) were searched for articles published up until November 2021. Manual searching of reference lists and citation tracking were also completed. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria and completed quality assessment. Articles were included if they evaluated CMB or PAL interventions delivered to university students in a tertiary setting. Results: Of the 1691 articles identified, 14 studies with 5997 participants met the inclusion criteria. Average study quality scores were poor for both CMB and PAL studies. CMBs and PAL are feasible in the tertiary setting and increase physical activity, reduce sedentary behaviour, increase wellbeing, and reduce fatigue in university students. In addition, CMBs increased student focus and attention in class and PAL had no detrimental effect on academic performance. Conclusions: University educators should feel confident in introducing CMB and/or PAL interventions into their classes to improve student health and wellbeing.