Effects of a Physical Activity Intervention in Preschool Children

Roth, Kristina; Kriemler, Susi; Lehmacher, Walter; Ruf, Katharina; Gräf, Christine; Hebestreit, Helge

doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000000703

Cited by 67 publications

(119 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(21 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the population size seems sensible in comparison to other trials investigating motor activities in preschools. Piek et al included almost the same, 501 children [37], whereas Roth et al investigated the effect of a physical activity intervention in preschools in a somewhat larger sample of 709 children [38]. However, many studies have demonstrated statistically significant effects with considerably smaller samples [39–42].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of motor skills training on children’s development evaluated in the Motor skills in PreSchool (MiPS) study-DK: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial, nested in a cohort study

Hestbæk

Andersen

Skovgaard

et al. 2017

Trials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundGood motor skills are considered important for children’s physical, social, and psychological development, but the relationship is still poorly understood. Preschool age seems to be decisive for the development of motor skills and probably the most promising time-window in relation to preventive strategies based on improved motor skills. This research program has four overall aims: (1) investigation of the effect of a structured program aimed at improving motor skills in 3–6-year-old children on current and future motor skills, health, cognition, and wellbeing; (2) establish reference data on motor skills in 3–6-year-olds; (3) description of early development of musculoskeletal problems; and (4) establishment of a population-based cohort of 3–6-year-olds.MethodsOver a four-year period, all preschools in a Danish municipality, Svendborg, will implement a new program aimed at optimizing children’s motor skills. By introducing the program into a subset of the preschools at onset and comparing these children to another subset (control) that will not receive the intervention the first three years, it is possible to document a potential effect of the intervention. At the same time, a cohort will be established including all children attending preschools in the municipality with extensive baseline data collection: gross and fine motor skills; movement patterns; musculoskeletal complaints; physical activity; anthropometry; general wellbeing; cognitive abilities; language status; medical history; demographic background; and more.The children are aged 3–6 years at baseline. A total of 1461 children have been invited into the cohort, 368 to the intervention arm and 359 to the control arm. Follow-up time for the trial is 2.5 years. The cohort is planned to run at least until the children leave school at age 15–16 years. Longer follow-up will depend on future funding.DiscussionIf the results of the trial are positive, the intervention can be implemented in other similar settings with reasonable ease and at a relatively low initial cost. This is due to the extensive end-user involvement, the broad population base, and the pragmatic nature of the intervention. The cohort will provide important information about the influence of early motor skills on children’s development across many domains and the potential interactions between these domains.Trial registrationISRCTN registry, ISRCTN23701994. Registered on 13 October 2016.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2143-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of motor skills training on children’s development evaluated in the Motor skills in PreSchool (MiPS) study-DK: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial, nested in a cohort study

Hestbæk

Andersen

Skovgaard

et al. 2017

Trials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…SHAPES) and the lead or final author's name in the same databases described in the preceding texts. This resulted in 15 sibling papers (28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42) retrieved across 10 interventions (43)(44)(45)(46)(47)(48)(49)(50)(51)(52).…”

Section: Realist Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the 34 studies included in the review, 11 studies (45,50,51,(53)(54)(55)(56)(57)(58)66) representing 1122 control and 963 intervention participants were included in the meta-analysis for LPA. Twenty-one studies (44,45,(48)(49)(50)(51)(52)(53)(54)(55)(56)(57)(58)(59)(60)(61)(66)(67)(68)73) representing 3063 control and 2226 intervention participants were included for MVPA. Heterogeneity of studies was high (I 2 = 92% LPA; I 2 = 97% MVPA).…”

Section: Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Interventions to increase physical activity in children 0–5 years old: a systematic review, meta‐analysis and realist synthesis

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Objective The objective of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to increase physical activity (PA) in 0–5 year olds and to determine what works, for whom, in what circumstances. Design Systematic review, meta‐analysis and realist synthesis. Data sources Embase and EBSCOhost (Academic Search Complete, CINAHL Complete, Global Health, MEDLINE Complete, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus with full text), up to and including April 2017. Eligibility criteria Published in a peer‐reviewed English language journal; randomized or controlled trial design; aimed to increase children's PA levels; reported on objectively assessed PA in children between 0 and 5.9 years at baseline and post‐intervention. Results Thirty‐four studies were included in the review, mostly conducted in the preschool/childcare setting. Meta‐analyses showed an overall non‐significant (Z = 0.04, p = 0.97) mean difference of 0.03 (95% CI = −1.57, 1.63) minutes/day for light‐intensity PA (n = 11). The overall mean difference for moderate‐intensity to vigorous‐intensity PA (n = 21) was 2.88 (95% CI = 1.54, 4.23) minutes/day, indicating a small but significant overall positive effect (Z = 4.20, p < 0.001). The realist synthesis provided insights into the key contexts and mechanisms that appeared to be effective at changing children's PA. Conclusion Based on a quantitative and qualitative examination of the evidence, this review provides specific recommendations for effective early childhood PA interventions for practitioners and policymakers.

show abstract

“…Use of a RCT design is a strength of the current study; it provided empirical evidence of the intervention efficacy and is necessary for valid analysis of the result of the intervention. 38 The ANCOVA allowed us to measure the overall mean difference in scores across both the intervention and control groups, and the interaction where the overall mean difference score for the intervention group is different from the mean score for the control group. This study established a relevant adoptable intervention in primary schools that is appropriate for children, includes varied learning styles, and is taught by teachers.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That the teachers organized the physically active academic lessons is key to motivating teachers to take ownership of the intervention. 38 At the same time, it increases the possibility of continuing with the activities after the study ends.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does increased physical activity in school affect children's executive function and aerobic fitness?

Kvalø

Bru

Brønnick

et al. 2017

Scandinavian Med Sci Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study seeks to explore whether increased PA in school affects children's executive function and aerobic fitness. The "Active school" study was a 10-month randomized controlled trial. The sample included 449 children (10-11 years old) in five intervention and four control schools. The weekly interventions were 2×45 minutes physically active academic lessons, 5×10 minutes physically active breaks, and 5×10 minutes physically active homework. Aerobic fitness was measured using a 10-minute interval running test. Executive function was tested using four cognitive tests (Stroop, verbal fluency, digit span, and Trail Making). A composite score for executive function was computed and used in analyses. Mixed ANCOVA repeated measures were performed to analyze changes in scores for aerobic fitness and executive function. Analysis showed a tendency for a time×group interaction on executive function, but the results were non-significant F(1, 344)=3.64, P=.057. There was no significant time×group interaction for aerobic fitness. Results indicate that increased physical activity in school might improve children's executive function, even without improvement in aerobic fitness, but a longer intervention period may be required to find significant effects.

show abstract

Effects of a Physical Activity Intervention in Preschool Children

Cited by 67 publications

References 38 publications

Influence of motor skills training on children’s development evaluated in the Motor skills in PreSchool (MiPS) study-DK: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial, nested in a cohort study

Influence of motor skills training on children’s development evaluated in the Motor skills in PreSchool (MiPS) study-DK: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial, nested in a cohort study

Interventions to increase physical activity in children 0–5 years old: a systematic review, meta‐analysis and realist synthesis

Does increased physical activity in school affect children's executive function and aerobic fitness?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About