Paper/ country | Study design | Sample size | Age | Intervention | Duration | Delivery | Physical activity measure | Academic outcome measure | Study quality | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ma et al., 2014 [34] Canada | Within subject | Students: n = 44 Schools: n = 2 Classes: n = 2 | Years 2 & 4 | FUNtervals = 20s VPA separated by 10s rest repeated 8 times Dose: alternating days | 3 weeks | Research staff | None | Off-task behaviour: direct observation | Strong | Off-task behaviour Significantly less following FUNtervals, compared with no activity condition - Year 4 children: off-task passive (ES = 0.31); off-task motor (ES = 0.48) - Year 2 children: off-task passive (ES = 0.74); off-task verbal (ES = 0.45) off-task motor (ES = 1.076) |
Howie et al., 2015 [31] USA | Within subject | n = 96 | Age 9 to 12 years Years 4 & 5 | Brain BITES (Better Ideas Through Exercise) = 5, 10 and 20 min MVPA active breaks Dose: 1 condition delivered twice per week | 4 weeks | Research staff | Intervention fidelity: direct observation | Executive function: trail making test & digit recall tests Mathematics: 1-min math fluency test | Moderate | Executive function: no difference between groups Mathematics: significant improvement after 10-min (ES = 0.24) and 20-min (ES = 0.27) active break, compared with sedentary condition |
Howie et al., 2014 [30] USA | On-task behaviour: direct observation | Moderate | On-task behaviour: largest improvement after 10 min active break (d = 0.50) | |||||||
Janssen et al., 2014 [32] Netherlands | Within subject | n = 123 | Age 10 to 11 years Year 5 | 15 min active breaks of varying PA intensities (MPA, VPA, passive break, no break) Dose: unclear | 4 weeks | Research staff | PA intensity during active breaks: Accelerometer | Selective attention: Test of Everyday Attention for children (TEA-ch test) | Moderate | Selective attention: improved most after MPA condition (B = −0.59, 95% CI: −0.70,-0.49), compared with VPA (B = −0.29, 95% CI: −0.39,-0.19), passive break (B = 0.27, 95% CI: −0.35,-0.18) and no break conditions |
Ma et al., 2015 [21] Canada | Within subject | n = 88 | Age 9 to 11 years Years 3 to 5 | FUNtervals = 20s VPA separated by 10s rest, repeated 8 times Dose: once/week | 3 weeks | Research staff | None | Selective attention: d2 Test of Attention | Moderate | Selective attention: significant improvement following FUNtervals, compared with no activity condition |
Barnard et al., 2014 [39] South Africa | Quasi-experimental with pre and post testing | Students: n = 149 Schools: n = 2 Classes: n = 6 | School A mean age: 7.33 years School B mean age: 7.47 years | 2 intervention programs: *integrated - 30 min integrated academic skills and motor skill program *intensive program - 30 min physical activity program Dose: 3 times/week | 8 weeks | Unclear | None | Literacy: ESSI Reading and Spelling tests Numeracy: VASSI Math Skills Test | Moderate | Reading: for the integrated (26%) and intensive (30%) programs test scores improved but not significant. Spelling: for the integrated (32%) and intensive (47%) programs test scores improved but not significant. Numeracy: for the integrated (30%) and intensive (21%) programs test scores improved but not significant. |
Hill et al., 2011 [29] Scotland | Cross over | n = 552 | Age 8 to 12 years Years 4 to 7 | 10 to 15 min MPA active break. Dose: once/day for one week, no intervention in the second week | 2 weeks | Not reported | None | Attention and executive function: paced serial addition, size ordering, listening \span, digit span backwards & visual coding | Moderate | Attention and executive function: improved only for those receiving the intervention in week 2 (mean difference = 3.85, 95% CI = 0.26,7.44) |
Schmidt et al., 2016 [26] | Within subject | n = 98 | Year 5 | 10 min active break involving running at different speeds Dose: 5 different days over 3 weeks | 3 weeks | Not reported | None | Attention: d2 Test of Attention | Moderate | Attention: no significant improvement |
Ahamed et al., 2007 [35] Canada | Cluster RCT | Students: n = 288 Schools: n = 10 | Age 9 to 11 years Years 4 and 5 | Action Schools! BC = 15 min MVPA active break. Dose: once/day | 16 months | Teacher | Habitual PA: Modified Physical Activity Questionnaire for Children (PAQ-C) | Mathematics, Reading and Language: Canadian Achievement Test | Weak | Mathematics, Reading and Language (total score) Although control school had significantly higher scores at baseline, no significant difference between intervention (mean = 1672 (9.6) and control groups (mean = 1688.6 (16.6) at follow up Physical activity: increase by 47 min/week in intervention schools (139 ± 62 vs 92 ± 45, p < 0.001) |
Carlson et al., 2015 [27] USA | Quasi-experimental (no pre-testing) | Students: n = 1322 Teachers>: n = 397 Schools: n = 24 | Mean age: 8.8 years Years 1 to 6 | 10 min MVPA active break Dose: At least once/day | 8 months | Teacher | School day PA: Accelerometer | Classroom behaviour: Teacher report | Weak | Classroom behaviour: Teachers who reported implementing active breaks reported fewer students who lacked effort or gave up easily (β = −0.17, 95% CI: −.033, −0.01), were more likely to agree that students work improves following participation in active breaks (OR = 1.88; 95% CI:1.04,3.37), and showed a trend towards agreement that students stay on task more after active breaks (OR = 1.88; 95% CI: 0.98,3.61; p = 0.056), compared with non-implementers Physical activity: students of teachers who reported ever holding active break had 3.14 more minutes per day of MVPA and were 75% more likely to have met the 30 min per day guideline for MVPA during school (OR: 1.75; 95% CI: 1.22, 2.51) |
Hill et al., 2010 [28] Scotland | Cross over | n = 1224 | Age 8 to 12 years Years 4 to 7 | 10 to 15 min MPA active break. Dose: once/day for one week, no intervention in the second week | 2 weeks | Not reported | None | Attention and executive function: paced serial addition, size ordering, listening span, digit span backwards & visual coding | Weak | Attention and executive function: improved only for those receiving the intervention on week 2 of the intervention (control group mean = 58.20 (18.03) vs. intervention group mean = 60.19 (19.38) |
Katz et al., 2010 [33] USA | RCT | n = 1214 | Years 2 to 4 | Activity Bursts in the Classroom = MVPA active breaks totaling 30 mins per day. Dose: Length and number of sessions/day could vary | 8 months | Teacher | None | Classroom behaviour: Work and social skills component of Independence School District (ISD) progress report card Mathematics and English: Year 4: Missouri Academic Performance Test (MAP) Years 2–4: ISD progress report | Weak | Classroom behaviour: no difference between groups Academic achievement: no difference between groups for MAP test results (Year 4 only), but a greater proportion of control group students (Years 2 to 4) showed improvement in math (28.6% vs. 20.8%) and reading (21.1% vs. 16.1%) as measured via ISD report, compared with intervention group |
Lisahunter et al., 2014 [38] Australia | Quasi-experimental with control group | Students: n = 107 Teachers: n = 6 Schools: n = 1 Classes: n = 4 | Age approx. 10 years Year 5 | Active Kids, Active Minds (AKAM) = additional 30 mins of MPA active break. Dose: once/day | 2 terms/approx. 20 weeks | Specially employed PE teacher | Habitual and school day PA: Pedometer (Yamax CW700) School day PA of at least MPA: Accelerometer (ActiGraph) | Cognitive function: Cognitive Assessment System Academic achievement: total score for 8 classroom subjects Classroom behaviour: school behaviour records | Weak | No difference between groups for any of the academic outcomes assessed Physical activity: daily steps declined from pre- (control = 13,772; intervention = 12,447) to post- (control = 12,046; intervention = 9702) for both intervention and control groups |
Whit-Glover et al., 2011 [36] USA | RCT | Students n = 4599 Schools: n = 8 | Years 3 to 5 | Instant Recess = 10 min MPA active break. Dose: once/day | 8 weeks | Teacher | PA during Instant Recess lesson: Direct observation | Classroom behaviour: direct observation | Weak | Classroom behaviour: 11% increase in time spent on-task in intervention, compared with control group Physical activity: MPA increased by 16% and LPA increased by 51% |
Wilson et al., 2015 [37] Australia | Within subject | Students: n = 58 boys Schools: n = 1 Classes: n = 4 | Mean age: 11.2 years Years 5 & 6 | 10 min MVPA active break outside the classroom Dose: once/day, 3 times/week | 4 weeks | Teacher | PA intensity during active breaks: accelerometer | Sustained attention: 5-min Psychomotor Vigilance Task On-task behaviour: direct observation | Weak | Sustained attention: no difference intervention group pre active break: mean = 477 (285) vs. post active break: mean = 479 (200) Off-task behaviour: no difference: intervention group pre active break: mean = 13.6 (10.0) vs. post active break: mean = 14.8% (11.6) |
Uhrich & Swarm., 2007 [35] USA | Quasi-experimental with control group | Students: n = 41 Schools n = 1 Classes n = 2 | Age 10 to 11 years Year 5 | 20 min of sport stacking: using both hands to stack a group of 12 specialized cups in predetermined combinations Dose: 3 times/week | 6 weeks | Research staff | None | Decoding and comprehension skills: Gates MacGinitie Reading Test Fourth Edition (GMRT-4) Decoding and Comprehension skill subtests | Weak | Decoding skills: no difference between groups (F 1,41 = 0.03, p > 0.05) Comprehension skills: Improvement in intervention group, compared with control (F 1,41 = 4.54, p < 0.05) |
Altenburg et al., 2016 [49] Netherlands | RCT | Students n = 62 Schools n = 5 *convenience sample | Aged 10 to 13 years | 20 min MPA active breaks comprising video-based dance activities Dose: once per day & twice per day | 1 day | Supervised by research staff | PA intensity during active breaks: heart rate monitor | Selective attention: Sky Search sub test of the Test of Everyday Attention for children (TEA-ch test) | Weak | Selective attention: test scores better after 2 bouts (β = −0.26 (95% CI:-0.52,-0.004), compared with one bout (β = 0.06 (95% CI: −0.23,0.36) and control condition. Note: a negative beta indicated a better attention score |
Van den Berg et al., 2016 [50] Netherlands | Within subject | Students: n = 195 Schools: n = 3 Classes: n = 8 | Age 10 to 13 years Year 5 & 6 | 12 min MPA active breaks = 3 conditions (aerobic, coordinative & strength-based PA) Dose: once off | 3 days | Children followed pre-recorded video of active break sessions, supervised by research staff | PA intensity during active breaks: heart rate monitor | Information processing speed: Letter Digit Substitution Test Selective attention: d2 Test of Attention | Weak | Information processing speed: no change [F(1174) = 0.71, p = 0.040 Selective attention: no change [F(1172) = 0.91, p = 0.34 |
Mead et al., 2016 [51] USA | Quasi-experimental with pre and post testing | Students: n = 81 Schools: n = 1 Classes: n = 3 | Year 6 Age 11 to 12 years | 3 conditions - implemented during 80 min math class (2 × 5-min active breaks, sitting on stability balls & traditional seated lesson) Dose: every day | Unclear | Teacher | None | Reading, Mathematics and Science: Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments Reading, Mathematics and Language: Measures of Academic Progress | Weak | Reading, Mathematics and Science: no difference between active break (pretest: 527.3 (29.8) vs. posttest (620.9 (34.2) and seated lesson conditions (pretest: 543.9 (13.1) vs. posttest 643.1 (12.4) Reading, Mathematics and Language: no difference between active break (pretest: 219.7 (14.0) vs. posttest (226.8 (15.1) and seated lesson conditions (pretest: 221.2 (16.0) vs. posttest 226.0 (15.1) |