UK Preschool-aged children’s physical activity levels in childcare and at home: a cross-sectional exploration

Background Young children are thought to be inactive in childcare, but little is known about location-specific activity levels. This observational study sought to describe the in-care and out-of-care activity patterns of preschool-aged children and explore differences in physical activity level by childcare attendance. Methods Three to four-year-old children were recruited from 30 preschool and nursery ‘settings’ in Cambridgeshire, UK. Average minutes per hour (min/h) spent sedentary (SED), in light physical activity (LPA) and in moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA) were measured by accelerometry for up to 7 days (mean: 6.7 ± 1.1). Weekly childcare attendance patterns were reported by parents. The within-child association between childcare attendance and outcomes was assessed using two- and three-level hierarchical regression; sex by care (in/out) interactions were considered. Results Two hundred and two children (51 % female) had valid activity data for ≥2 days. Children, and particularly boys, were less sedentary and more active when in care compared to at home (SED: Boys: β (SE): −6.4 (0.5) min/h, Girls: −4.8 (0.5); LPA: Boys: 0.6 (0.4), Girls: 1.8 (0.4); MVPA: Boys: 5.7 (0.5); Girls: 3.0 (0.4)). Differences between in-care and at-home activity were largest in the (early) mornings and early evenings for boys; no compensation in at-home activity occurred later in the day. On days when children were in care part-time (1–5 h) or full-time (>5 h), they were significantly less sedentary and more active compared with non-care days. Conclusions Young children, and particularly boys, accumulate more MVPA in care compared to at home. Future research should identify factors accounting for this difference and consider targeting non-care time in intervention efforts to increase higher-intensity activity and decrease sedentary time in preschoolers

How does the UK childcare energy-balance environment influence 3-to-4-year-olds’ anthropometry? A cross-sectional exploration

ABSTRACT Objectives To assess the association between time spent in care, the childcare energy-balance environment, and preschool-aged children’s Body Mass Index z-score (z-BMI), waist-to-height ratio (WHR), and sum of skinfolds thickness (SST). Design Cross-sectional study. Setting and participants 3-to-4-year-old children were recruited from 30 childcare centres in Cambridgeshire (UK) in 2013. Main outcome measures Objectively measured height and weight was used to calculate BMI z-score; waist circumference and height were used to generate WHR; subscapular and tricep skinfolds were used to calculate SST. Associations between childcare attendance, the nutrition, physical activity, and overall childcare environment, and three anthropometric outcomes were explored using two-level hierarchical regression models, adjusting for demographic and family-based confounders. Results Valid data were available for 196 children (49% female). Time spent in care, the nutrition, physical activity, and overall childcare environment were not associated with children’s z-BMI score, WHR, and SST. Conclusions Childcare environment and level of attendance were not associated with UK preschool-aged children’s anthropometry. The childcare environment has been central to intervention efforts to prevent/ reduce early childhood obesity, yet other factors, including child-, family-, wider environmental, and policy-level factors warrant substantial attention when considering obesity prevention strategies for young children

Feasibility study and pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of the GoActive Intervention aiming to promote physical activity among adolescents: outcomes and lessons learnt

$\textbf{Objectives:}$ Assess the feasibility of implementing the GoActive intervention in secondary schools, to identify improvements, test study procedures, determine preliminary effectiveness to increase moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), and inform power calculations to establish programme effectiveness. $\textbf{Setting:}$ Feasibility study (1 school) and pilot CRCT (2 intervention;1 control school(s)) $\textbf{Participants:}$ 460 participants (46.6% female; 13.2(0.4) years-old). $\textbf{Interventions:}$ 8-week intervention (2013) involved: classes choosing weekly activities encouraged by Mentors (older adolescents) and in-class peer-leaders. Students gain points for trying activities which are entered into an intra-mural competition. $\textbf{Primary and secondary outcome measures:}$ Planned quantitative (questionnaire) and qualitative (focus groups) process evaluation addressed enjoyment, confidence, participation, suggested improvements. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and follow-up (week 8) in pilot CRCT and included: accelerometer-assessed MVPA; adolescent-reported activity type, wellbeing, peer-support, shyness, sociability. ANCOVA was used to assess preliminary effectiveness as change in MVPA adjusted for baseline. $\textbf{Results:}$ All Year 9 students in intervention schools were exposed to the intervention; over all schools 77% of eligible students were measured. 71% boys and 74% girls found GoActive ‘fun’; 38% boys and 32% girls said it increased confidence and 64% boys and 59% girls said they would continue with a GoActive activity. Suggested improvements included more Mentorship; improved training; streamlined points recording. Pilot results indicated potential effectiveness ((adjusted mean difference (95%CI)p-value) (MVPA mins) 5.1(1.1,9.2)p=0.014)) and suggest recruitment of 16 schools (2400 adolescents) for a full trial. Compared to control, intervention students reported greater peer support 0.5(0.1,0.9)p=0.03, wellbeing 1.8(0.1, 3.4)p=0.04 but no difference in shyness/sociability. Participation in activity types approached significance (intervention group 2.3(-0.2,4.7)p=0.07 more activity types). $\textbf{Conclusions:}$ Results suggest feasibility and indicate potential effectiveness of GoActive to increase MVPA and support a fully-powered evaluation of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Process evaluation data was used to refine GoActive prior to a full trial. $\textbf{Trial Registration:}$ ISRCTN registry ISRCTN31583496.Funding for this study and the work of all authors was supported, wholly or in part, by the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence (RES-590-28-0002). Funding from the British Heart Foundation, Department of Health, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, and the Wellcome Trust, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged. The work of Kirsten Corder, Helen Brown and Esther M F van Sluijs was supported by the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12015/7)

A longitudinal study of the distance that young people walk to school.

Walking or cycling to school has been associated with important health benefits. Distance between home and school is the main correlate of active commuting to school, but how far children walk to school and how this changes as children age is unknown. Mode of commuting and objectively-assessed distance to school were measured at 3 time points: aged 9/10 years, 10/11 years and 13/14 years. Data were analysed using ROC-curve analyses. With age, children walked further to school; the threshold distance that best discriminated walkers from passive commuters was 1421 m in 10-year-olds, 1627 m in 11-year-olds and 3046 m in 14-year-olds. Future interventions should consider the distance that young people actually walk.The SPEEDY study is funded by the National Prevention Research Initiative (http://www.npri.org.uk), consisting of the following Funding Partners: British Heart Foundation; Cancer Research UK; Department of Health; Diabetes UK; Economic and Social Research Council; Medical Research Council; Health and Social Care Research and Development Office for the Northern Ireland; Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health Directorates; Welsh Assembly Government and World Cancer Research Fund. This work was also supported by the Medical Research Council [Unit Programme numbers MC_UU_12015/7; MC_UU_12015/4] and the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), a UKCRC Public Health Research: Centre of Excellence. Funding from the British Heart Foundation, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged. Jenna Panter is funded through a post-doctoral fellowship funded by the National Institute of Health Research. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NIHR PHR programme or the Department of Health.This is the final version. It was first published by Elsevier at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135382921400159

Equity effects of children’s physical activity interventions: a systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND: Differential effects of physical activity (PA) interventions across population sub-groups may contribute to inequalities in health. This systematic scoping review explored the state of the evidence on equity effects in response to interventions targeting children’s PA promotion. The aims were to assess and summarise the availability of evidence on differential intervention effects of children’s PA interventions across gender, body mass index, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, place of residence and religion. METHODS: Using a pre-piloted search strategy, six electronic databases were searched for controlled intervention trials, aiming to increase PA in children (6–18 years of age), that used objective forms of measurement. Screening and data extraction were conducted in duplicate. Reporting of analyses of differential effects were summarized for each equity characteristic and logistic regression analyses run to investigate intervention characteristics associated with the reporting of equity analyses. RESULTS: The literature search identified 13,052 publications and 7963 unique records. Following a duplicate screening process 125 publications representing 113 unique intervention trials were included. Although the majority of trials collected equity characteristics at baseline, few reported differential effects analyses across the equity factors of interest. All 113 included interventions reported gender at baseline with 46% of non-gender targeted interventions reporting differential effect analyses by gender. Respective figures were considerably smaller for body mass index, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, place of residence and religion. There was an increased likelihood of studying differential effects in school based interventions (OR: 2.9 [1.2–7.2]) in comparison to interventions in other settings, larger studies (per increase in 100 participants; 1.2 [1.0 – 1.4]); and where a main intervention effect on objectively measured PA was reported (3.0 [1.3–6.8]). CONCLUSIONS: Despite regularly collecting relevant information at baseline, most controlled trials of PA interventions in children do not report analyses of differences in intervention effect across outlined equity characteristics. Consequently, there is a scarcity of evidence concerning the equity effects of these interventions, particularly beyond gender, and a lack of understanding of subgroups that may benefit from, or be disadvantaged by, current intervention efforts. Further evidence synthesis and primary research is needed to effectively understand the impact of PA interventions on existing behavioural inequalities within population subgroups of children.Funding for this study and the work of all authors was supported, wholly or in part, by the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence (RES-590-28-0002). Funding from the British Heart Foundation, Department of Health, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, and the Wellcome Trust, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged. Rebecca Love is funded by a Gates Cambridge Scholarship. The work of Esther M F van Sluijs was supported by the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12015/7)

Changes in consumption of added sugars from age 13 to 30 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies

Added sugar intake during adolescence has been associated with weight gain and cardiometabolic risk factors. Moreover, dietary habits may persist into adulthood, increasing chronic disease risk in later life. This systematic review investigated changes in intake of added sugars between the ages of 13 and 30 years. Literature databases were searched for longitudinal studies of diet during adolescence or early adulthood. Retrieved articles were screened for studies including multiple measures of intake of sugars or sugary foods from cohort participants between the ages of 13 and 30. Data were analysed using random-effects meta-analysis, by the three main nutrient and food group categories identified (PROSPERO: CRD42015030126). Twenty-four papers reported longitudinal data on intake of added sugar or sucrose ($n$ = 6), sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) ($n$ = 20) and/or confectionery ($n$ = 9). Meta-analysis showed a non-significant per year of age decrease in added sugar or sucrose intake (-0.15% total energy intake (95%CI -0.41; 0.12)), a decrease in confectionery consumption (-0.20 servings/week (95%CI -0.41; -0.001)) and a non-significant decrease in SSB consumption (-0.15 servings/week (95%CI -0.32; 0.02)). Taken together, the overall decrease in added sugar intake observed from adolescence to early adulthood may suggest opportunities for intervention to further improve dietary choices within this age range

Barriers and facilitators to young children’s physical activity and sedentary behaviour: a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative literature

Positive activity behaviours (i.e. higher physical activity [PA]/lower sedentary behaviour [SB]) are beneficial from infancy, yet evidence suggests that young children (0- to 6-year-olds) are relatively inactive. To better understand the perceived influences on these behaviours and to aid intervention development, this paper systematically synthesizes the extensive qualitative literature regarding perceived barriers and facilitators to PA and SB in young children (0–6 years old). A search of eight electronic databases (July 2016) identified 43 papers for inclusion. Data extraction and evidence synthesis were conducted using thematic content analysis, underpinned by the socio-ecological model (i.e. individual, interpersonal, community, organizational and policy levels). Parents, childcare providers and children perceived seven broad themes to be important for PA and SB, including the child; the home; out-of-home childcare; parent–childcare provider interactions; environmental factors; safety; and weather. Each theme mapped onto between one and five levels of the socio-ecological model; barriers and facilitators at the interpersonal level (e.g. parents, care providers and family) were most frequently cited, reflecting the important (perceived) role adults/peers play in shaping young children’s behaviours. We provide an overarching framework to explain PA and SB in early childhood. We also highlight where gaps in the current literature exist (e.g. from male carers; in developing countries; and barriers and facilitators in the environmental and policy domains) and where future quantitative work may focus to provide novel insights about children’s activity behaviours (e.g. safety and weather).This is an outline of independent research funded by the National Institute of Health Research, School for Public Health Research (NIHR SPHR). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. The National Institute for Health Research’s School for Public Health Research (NIHR SPHR) is a partnership between the Universities of Sheffield, Bristol, Cambridge, UCL; The London School for Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; The Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry; the LiLaC collaboration between the Universities of Liverpool and Lancaster and Fuse; The Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, a collaboration between Newcastle, Durham, Northumbria, Sunderland and Teesside Universities. KH is funded by the Wellcome Trust [107337/Z/15/Z]. This work was also supported by the Medical Research Council [Unit Programme numbers MC_UU_12015/7], and undertaken under the auspices of the Centre for Diet and Activity Research, a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence which is funded by the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust (RES-590-28-0002)

How does the UK childcare energy-balance environment influence anthropometry of children aged 3-4 years? A cross-sectional exploration

OBJECTIVES: To assess the association between time spent in care, the childcare energy-balance environment, and preschool-aged children's body mass index z-score (z-BMI), waist-to-height ratio (WHR) and sum of skinfold thickness (SST). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Children aged 3-4 years were recruited from 30 childcare centres in Cambridgeshire (UK) in 2013. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Objectively measured height and weight was used to calculate z-BMI; waist circumference and height were used to generate WHR; subscapular and tricep skinfolds were used to calculate SST. Associations between childcare attendance, the nutrition, physical activity, and overall childcare environment, and three anthropometric outcomes were explored using two-level hierarchical regression models, adjusting for demographic and family based confounders. RESULTS: Valid data were available for 196 children (49% female). Time spent in care, the nutrition, physical activity and overall childcare environment were not associated with children's z-BMI, WHR and SST. CONCLUSIONS: Childcare environment and level of attendance were not associated with UK preschool-aged children's anthropometry. The childcare environment has been central to intervention efforts to prevent/reduce early childhood obesity, yet other factors, including child-level, family level, wider environmental and policy-level factors warrant substantial attention when considering obesity prevention strategies for young children

Engaging stakeholders and target groups in prioritising a public health intervention: the Creating Active School Environments (CASE) online Delphi study

$\textbf{Objectives}$ Stakeholder engagement and public involvement are considered as integral to developing effective public health interventions and is encouraged across all phases of the research cycle. However, limited guidelines and appropriate tools exist to facilitate stakeholder engagement—especially during the intervention prioritisation phase. We present the findings of an online ‘Delphi’ study that engaged stakeholders (including young people) in the process of prioritising secondary school environment-focused interventions that aim to increase physical activity. $\textbf{Setting }$ Web-based data collection using an online Delphi tool enabling participation of geographically diverse stakeholders. $\textbf{Participants }$ 37 stakeholders participated, including young people (age 13–16 years), parents, teachers, public health practitioners, academics and commissioners; 33 participants completed both rounds. $\textbf{Primary and secondary outcome measures}$ Participants were asked to prioritise a (short-listed) selection of school environment-focused interventions (eg, standing desks, outdoor design changes) based on the criteria of ‘reach’, ‘equality’, ‘acceptability’, ‘feasibility’, ‘effectiveness’ and ‘cost’. Participants were also asked to rank the criteria and the effectiveness outcomes (eg, physical activity, academic achievement, school enjoyment) from most to least important. Following feedback along with any new information provided, participants completed round 2 4 weeks later. $\textbf{Results }$ The intervention prioritisation process was feasible to conduct and comments from participants indicated satisfaction with the process. Consensus regarding intervention strategies was achieved among the varied groups of stakeholders, with ‘active lessons’ being the favoured approach. Participants ranked ‘mental health and well-being’ as the most important outcome followed by ‘enjoyment of school’. The most important criteria was ‘effectiveness’, followed by ‘feasibility’. $\textbf{Conclusions }$ This novel approach to engaging a wide variety of stakeholders in the research process was feasible to conduct and acceptable to participants. It also provided insightful information relating to how stakeholders prioritise interventions. The approach could be extended beyond the specific project to be a useful tool for researchers and practitioners.This report is independent research commissioned and funded by the Department of Health Policy Research Programme (opportunities within the school environment to shift the distribution of activity intensity in adolescents, PR-R5-0213-25001). This work was also supported by the Medical Research Council (unit programme number: MC_UU_12015/7). The work was undertaken under the auspices of the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence which is funded by the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust (MR/K023187/1)

Family-based interventions to increase physical activity in children: a systematic review, meta-analysis and realist synthesis.

OBJECTIVE: Family-based interventions represent a potentially valuable route to increasing child physical activity (PA) in children. A dual meta-analysis and realist synthesis approach examined existing interventions to assist those developing programmes to encourage uptake and maintenance of PA in children. DESIGN: Studies were screened for inclusion based on including participants aged 5-12 years, having a substantive aim of increasing PA by engaging the family and reporting on PA outcome. Duplicate data extraction and quality assessment were conducted. Meta-analysis was conducted in STATA. Realist synthesis included theory development and evidence mapping. RESULTS: Forty-seven studies were included, of which three received a 'strong' quality rating, 21 'moderate' and 23 'weak'. The meta-analysis (19 studies) demonstrated a significant small effect in favour of the experimental group (standardized mean difference: 0.41; 95%CI 0.15-0.67). Sensitivity analysis, removing one outlier, reduced this to 0.29 (95%CI 0.14-0.45). Realist synthesis (28 studies) provided insight into intervention context (particularly, family constraints, ethnicity and parental motivation), and strategies to change PA (notably, goal-setting and reinforcement combined). CONCLUSION: This review provides key recommendations to inform policy makers and other practitioners in developing evidence-based interventions aimed at engaging the family to increase PA in children, and identifies avenues for future research.This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for- profit sectors. This work was supported by the Medical Research Council [Unit Programme number: MC_UU_12015/7], and undertaken under the auspices of the Centre for Diet and Activity Research, a UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence which is funded by the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust (RES-590-28-0002). JP is supported by an NIHR post-doctoral fellowship (NIHR-PDF-2012-05-157). This article presents independent research in which the funders had no involvement in the study design; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; the writing of the article; or the decision to submit the article for publication. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, the Department of Health or the other funders.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Wiley via http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/obr.1236