Does Girls Active lead to active girls?

A study published in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity looks at the results of an intervention aimed at improving the activity levels of adolescent girls.

The randomised controlled trial by Deirdre Harrington and colleagues took place in 20 secondary schools in Leicester. Ten schools received Girls Active and ten schools continued with usual practice. Developed by the Youth Sport Trust, Girls Active is focused on providing a support framework to schools to review their physical activity, sport, and PE teaching to ensure they are relevant and attractive to all adolescent girls, but with a particular focus on 11–14 year olds. The programme includes a range of resources for schools, including self-evaluation, training, mentoring, and funding for developing school capacity.

In total, 1,752 girls aged 11-14 participated. The primary outcome measure (at baseline, 7 months, and 14 months) was moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA), as recorded on wrist-worn accelerometers. Secondary outcomes included overall physical activity, light physical activity, sedentary time, body composition, and psychosocial outcomes. The results showed small improvements in MVPA in comparison with control schools after 7 months, but none after 14 months. Subgroup analysis showed that the intervention was effective at 14 months in larger schools, but caused an MVPA decrease in smaller schools. There was no pattern in the secondary outcomes, and any differences were slight.

Source: Effectiveness of the ‘Girls Active’ school-based physical activity programme: A cluster randomised controlled trial (April 2018) International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity

Screen addicts missing out on GCSE potential

A new article in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity investigated the association between GCSE results and three aspects of the way that teenagers had spent their time when they were 14.5 years old:

  1. Physical activity
  2. Screen time sedentary behaviour (TV/films, internet, computer games)
  3. Non-screen sedentary behaviour (reading, homework)

The study was based on 845 teenagers from Cambridgeshire and Suffolk. Data was taken from the ROOTS study, which aims to determine the relative contributions of genetic, physiological, psychological, and social variables to well-being and mental health during adolescence. Trained researchers administered questionnaires, conducted physical measurements, and gave instructions regarding physical activity measurements at participating schools.

The participants’ median daily screen time was approximately 1.9 hours. The authors found that teenagers reporting an extra hour of daily screen time at 14.5 years old achieved 9.3 fewer GCSE points (almost two grades lower) at 16. All three separate screen behaviours were independently negatively associated with academic performance.

However, participants doing an extra hour of daily homework and reading (up to four hours/day) achieved 23.1 more GCSE points (an increase of four grades). Physical activity did not appear to be either detrimental or beneficial to academic performance.

Other findings included that boys were more active and less sedentary than girls, and boys reported more screen time but less non-screen sedentary time than girls. Girls had higher academic performance than boys.

The authors noted some limitations in the study, including the possibility that less-academic pupils are likely to be doing the less-academic subjects and may be given less homework.

Source: Revising on the Run or Studying on the Sofa: Prospective Associations Between Physical Activity, Sedentary Behaviour, and Exam Results in British Adolescents (2015), International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 12(106).