Study | BMI/BMI z-score | Physical activity | Sedentary behaviour | Nutrition behaviour |
---|---|---|---|---|
Adamo et al. (2017) [51] | Short term follow-up: No change in BMI in the intervention group (0.0 kg/m2) compared to a decrease in the control group (− 0.5 kg/m2) (p = 0.155) ES 0.24 Larger increase of fat mass in the intervention group (0.6 kg) compared to the control group (0.2 kg) (p = 0.234) ES 0.30 Increase in fat-free mass in both the intervention (0.7 kg) and the control group (0.7 kg) (p = 0.876) ES 0 Increase in fat percent in the intervention group (1.7%) compared to a decrease in the control group (− 0.6%) (p = 0.253) ES 0.39 | Short term follow-up: Increase in total physical activity in both the intervention group (1.6 min/h) and the control group (1.6 min/h) (p = 0.995) ES 0 Increase in MVPA in both the intervention group (1.3 min/h) and the control group (1.3 min/h) (p = 0.932) ES 0 Increase in LPA in both the intervention (0.3 min/h) and control group (0.3 min/h) (p = 0.955) ES 0 | Short term follow-up: Decrease in sedentary time in both the intervention (− 1.6 min/h) and the control group (− 1.6 min/h) (p = 0.995) ES 0 | NA |
Cespedes et al. (2013) [37] | Short term follow-up: Smaller increase in BMI in the intervention (0.58 kg/m2) compared to the control group (0.63 kg/m2) (p = 0.193) ES − 0.59 Long term measurement: No significant differences between the intervention and control group (p = 0.5, no data provided). | NA | NA | NA |
Cruz et al. (2016) [52] | NA | Short term follow-up: Increase in proportion ‘often’ ball playing in intervention group (+ 8.2%) compared to a decrease in the control group (− 4.5%) (ns) Increase in proportion ‘often’ dancing in intervention group (+ 16.1%) compared to a decrease in the control group (− 10.6%) (p < 0.01) Larger increase in proportion ‘often’ playing active games in intervention group (+ 10.8%) compared to the control group (+ 5.9%) (ns) Larger increase in proportion ‘often’ jumping in intervention group (+ 11.8%) compared to the control group (+ 5.4%) (ns) Increase in proportion ‘often’ walking in intervention group (+ 2.5%) compared to a decrease in the control group (− 1.3%) (ns) | NA | NA |
Davis et al. (2016) [56] | Short term follow-up: Larger increase in BMI z-score in the intervention group (0.17) compared to the control group (0.11) (p = 0.34) ES 0.036 | NA | NA | NA |
De Bock et al. (2013) [38] | Short term follow-up: No differences in mean change in BMI (0.064 kg/m2) between intervention and control group (p = 0.41) ES 0.01 No differences in mean change in body fat (0.21%) between intervention and control group (p = 0.32) | Short term follow-up: Increase of mean counts per 15-s interval (+ 1.38) in intervention group compared to control group (p = 0.019) ES 0.08 No difference in MVPA (+ 0.97 min) between intervention and control group (p > 0.1) ES 0.06 | Short term follow-up: Decrease in time in sedentary behaviour (− 11 min) in the intervention group compared to control group (p = 0.014) ES − 0.06 | NA |
Gao et al. (2016) [53] | NA | NA | NA | Short term follow-up: Increase in daily breakfast frequency in the intervention group (+ 1.1%) compared to a decrease in the control group (− 1.9) (p = 0.02) Increase in quantity of food for breakfast in the intervention group compared to a decrease in the control group (p < 0.001) More high-in-nutrient food types in breakfast in the intervention group compared to more high-in-energy food types in the control group (p < 0.001) |
Hu et al. (2010) [54] | NR | NA | NA | Short term follow-up: Some unhealthy diet-related behaviours were significantly different between the intervention and control groups (p < 0.05), while others showed no significant difference. Improvement in healthy diet-related behaviours in the intervention group (p < 0.05). |
Kaufman-Shriqui et al. (2016) [39] | Follow-up not indicated: Reduction of BMI z-score (− 0.1) in total study population (p = 0.003). No group-specific scores reported. | Follow-up not indicated: Decrease of mean PA time in control group (− 0.42 h) compared to intervention group (− 0.21 h, p = 0.03) ES 0.18 | Follow-up not indicated: Increase of screen time in control group (+ 0.54 h) compared to no change in intervention group (p = 0.001) ES − 0.4 | Short term follow-up: Greater increase in food variety (intervention + 26.5%, control + 7.6%); daily vegetable consumption (intervention + 24.7%, control + 9.2%), and habitual water drinking (intervention + 21.3%, control + 10.8%) in the intervention group compared to the control group, all p < 0.05. Greater decrease in daily consumption of SSB in the intervention group (− 19.2%) compared to the control group (− 13.6%, p = 0.02). Non-significant smaller decrease in daily consumption of sweet and candies in the intervention group (− 17.7%) compared to the control group (− 18.2%, p = 0.08) Long term follow-up: Greater increases in food variety (intervention + 25.3%, control + 8.1%), daily vegetable consumption (Intervention + 22.3%, control + 8.8%), and habitual water drinking (intervention + 19%, control + 11.9%) in intervention group compared to control group (all p < 0.05). Decrease in daily consumption of SSB in the intervention group (− 15.3%) compared to control group (− 8.3%) (p = 0.05) No significant difference between intervention group (− 22.9%) and control group (− 15.2%) in consumption of sweet and candies on daily basis (p = 0.13). |
Klein et al. (2015) [40] | Short term follow-up: Significant decrease in BMI in group KiMo (− 0.1 kg/m2), NF-P (− 0.1 kg/m2) and NF-NP (− 0.2 kg/m2) compared to an increase in control group (all p < 0.001) ES − 0.13, − 0.12, − 0.19, respectively | Short term follow-up: Motor tests: Non-significant differences in Shuttle Run between groups (KiMo − 1.1 s, NF-P − 0.8 s, NF-NP − 1.0 s and CG − 1.3 s) ES 0.06, 0.17, 0.1, respectively Non-significant differences in Standing Long Jump between groups (KiMo + 12.6 cm, NF-P + 10.8 cm, NF-NP + 13.1 cm, CG + 8.8 cm) ES 0.15, 0.08, 0.17, respectively Significant differences in Sit and Reach between KiMo (+ 0.7 cm, p < 0.001), NF-P (+ 0.3, p = 0.007), NF-NP (+ 0.6 cm, p < 0.001) and control group (− 0.6 cm) ES 0.27, 0.20, 0.27, respectively Significant negative difference in One Leg Stand between KiMo (− 2.0 ground contacts, p < 0.001), NF-P (− 2.8 ground contacts, p = 0.035) and control group (− 3.2 ground contacts) ES 0.16, 0.05, respectively Non-significant difference between NF-NP (− 3.2 ground contacts) and control group (− 3.2 ground contacts) ES 0 Non-significant differences in Lateral Jumping between KiMo (+ 4.4 jumps), NF-P (+ 4.7 jumps), NF-NP (+ 4.8 jumps), and control group (+ 4.2 jumps) ES 0.02, 0.05, 0.06, respectively | NA | NA |
Lumeng et al. (2017) [41] | Short term follow-up: Non-significant difference in percentage overweight or obese between HS + POPS (− 2.3%, p = 0.35), HS + POPS+IYS (− 0.6%, p = 0.77) and HS (+ 0.6%) Non-significant differences in percentage obese between HS + POPS (− 2.9%, p = 0.16), HS + POPS+IYS (− 2.1%, p = 0.33) and HS (+ 0.8%) Non-significant differences in BMI z-score in children overweight or obese at baseline between HS + POPS (− 0.11, p = 0.98), HS + POPS+IYS (− 0.16, p = 0.44) and HS (− 0.11) ES 0, − 0.12, respectively | Short term follow-up: Non-significant differences in outdoor play between HS + POPS (− 0.82 h/d, p = 0.48), HS + POPS+IYS (− 0.47 h/d, p = 0.25) and HS (− 0.68 h/d) ES − 0.08, 0.12, respectively | Short term follow-up: Non-significant difference in screen time between HS + POPS (+ 0.55 h/d, p = 0.75), HS + POPS+IYS (+ 0.24 h/d, p = 0.11) and HS (+ 0.5 h/d) ES 0.03, − 0.17, respectively | Short term follow-up: Non-significant differences in vegetable servings/day between HS + POPS (− 0.02, p = 0.90), HS + POPS+IYS (− 0.05, p = 0.88) and HS (− 0.03) ES 0.01, − 0.02, respectively Non-significant differences in whole fruit servings/day between HS + POPS (+ 0.05, p 0.86), HS + POPS+IYS (− 0.02, p = 0.60) and HS (+ 0.03) ES 0.02, − 0.04, respectively Non-significant differences in fruit juice servings/day between HS + POPS (− 0.21, p = 0.77), HS + POPS+IYS (− 0.06, p = 0.39) and HS (− 0.17) ES − 0.03, 0.10, respectively Non-significant difference in SSB servings/day between HS + POPS (+ 0.01, p = 0.12) and HS (+ 0.14) ES − 0.20 Significant difference in SSB servings/day between HS + POPS+IYS (− 0.07, p = 0.005) and HS (+ 0.14) ES − 0.32 |
Natale, Lopez-Mitnik et al. (2014) [42] | Short term follow-up: Less increase in BMI z-score in the intervention group (+ 0.05) compared to the control group (+ 0.16) (NS) ES − 0.04 | Short term follow-up: No significant differences between intervention and control group (no data reported). | Follow-up not indicated: Significantly more time spent on the computer (p < 0.01) and watching TV (p < 0.0001) in the control group compared to the intervention group at school (no data reported). | Follow-up not indicated: During school time: Intervention group decreased mean junk food consumption, while the control group increased consumption. Intervention group increased mean fresh fruit and vegetable consumption. Intervention groups decreased juice consumption. Intervention group increased 1% milk consumption. Control group decreased water consumption. For all outcomes no data were reported. |
Natale, Messiah et al. (2014) [55] | NA | NA | Short term follow-up: The intervention group decreased sedentary behaviour, compared to an increase in the control group (p < 0.004). | Short term follow-up: No change in fruit/vegetable consumption in the intervention group, compared to a decrease in the control group (p < 0.05). The intervention group decreased the consumption of junk food, compared to an increase in the control group (p = 0.01). |
Natale et al. (2017) [57] | Short term follow-up: The intervention group had a negative slope (β = − 1.95, p = 0.04) in BMI percentile growth curve, indicating a significant positive change in PBMI over time. | NA | NA | Short term follow-up: No significant difference between groups in change over time in children’s fruit/vegetable consumption (β = 0.04, p = 0.34) and children’s unhealthy food consumption (β = 0.01, p = 0.80). |
Nyberg et al. (2015) [43] | Short term follow-up: No significant difference in BMIsds between intervention (∆-0.11) and control group (∆-0.06) ES − 0.04. No significant difference in change of prevalence of underweight (∆ = 1.6, p = 0.53), normal weight (∆ = − 1.9, p = 0.65), overweight (∆ = 2.3, p = 0.54), obese (∆ = − 1.8, p = 0.16). Long term follow-up: No significant difference in change of prevalence of underweight (∆-0.8, p = 0.69), normal weight (∆ + 0.9, p = 0.61), overweight (∆ + 4.7, p = 0.43), and obesity (∆-1.8, p = 0.37) between the intervention and control group. Outcomes on BMIsds not reported. | Short term follow-up: No significant differences between the intervention and control group in TPA (cpm, β = − 21.2, p = 0.58) or MVPA (minutes, β = − 4.9, p = 0.33) ES − 0.12, − 0.13 resp. Non-significant difference in ‘child taken to activity in the last week’ (time/week) between intervention and control group (β = − 0.48, p = 0.07) ES − 0.33 Long term follow-up: No significant differences between the intervention group and control group in TPA (cpm, β = − 15.0, p = 0.51) or MVPA (minutes, β = + 2.7, p = 0.60) ES − 0.09, 0.07 resp. No significant difference in ‘child taken to activity in the last week’ (time/week) between intervention and control group (β = − 0.27, p = 0.22) ES − 0.18 | Short term follow-up: No significant difference in % time spent sedentary (β = 0.4, p = 0.59) between the intervention and the control group ES 0.07. No significant difference between the intervention and the control group in screen time viewing (min/day, β = − 3.59, p = 0.76) ES − 0.06. Long term follow-up: No significant differences in % time spent sedentary (β = − 0.8, p = 0.27) between the intervention and control group. ES − 0.13 No significant difference in screen time viewing (min/day) between intervention and control group (β = − 8.23, p = 0.29) ES − 0.14 | Short term follow-up: No significant differences of ‘servings in the precious weekday’ between intervention and control group for fruit juice (β = − 0.20, p = 0.38) ES − 0.25; soft drink/sugar syrup (β = − 0.37, p = 0.23) ES − 0.88; milk (β = 0.04, p = 0.71) ES 0.04; flavoured milk (β = 0.04, p = 0.92) ES 0.09; vegetables (β = 0.09, p = 0.44) ES 0.08; snacks (β = − 0.28, p = 0.44) ES − 0.48; fruit (β = 0.11, p = 0.26) ES 0.08; sweets (β = − 0.003, p = 0.99) ES − 0.004; cakes/buns/cookies (β = − 0.25, p = 0.24) ES − 0.30; ice-cream (β = 0.08, p = 0.69) ES 0.09. Significant difference between the intervention and the control group for ‘usual servings of vegetables per day’ (β = 0.26, p = 0.003) ES 0.40 Long term follow-up: No significant difference of ‘servings in the previous weekday, between intervention or control group for fruit juice (β = − 0.21, p = 0.41) ES − 0.26; soft drink/sugar syrup (β = + 0.20, p = 0.63) ES 0.45; milk (β = − 0.01, p = 0.95) ES − 0.01; flavoured milk (β = − 0.18, p = 0.67) ES − 0.43; vegetables (β = + 0.05, p = 0.67) ES 0.05; snacks (β = − 0.67, p = 0.30) ES − 1.35; fruit (β = + 0.13, p = 0.23) ES 0.10; sweets (β = + 0.49, p = 0.23) ES 0.61; cakes/buns/cookies (β = + 0.38, p = 0.24) ES 0.47; ice-cream (β = + 0.41, p = 0.18) ES 0.46. No significant difference in usual servings of vegetables per day between the intervention and control group (β = + 0.14, p = 0.14) ES 0.21 |
Nyberg et al. (2016) [44] | Short term follow-up: No significant differences in BMI sds scores between intervention and control group (β = − 0.03, p = 0.46) ES − 0.02 Long term follow-up: No significant differences in BMI sds scores between the intervention and control group (β = 0.013, p = 0.79) ES 0.01 | Short term follow-up: No significant differences between the intervention and the control group for TPA (cpm, β = − 30.1, p = 0.18) or MVPA (minutes, β = − 1.5, p = 0.55) ES − 0.16, − 0.06 resp. Long term follow-up: No significant differences between the intervention group and control group in TPA (cpm, β = − 34.8, p = 0.13) or MVPA (minutes, β = − 3.6, p = 0.19) ES − 0.18, − 0.15 resp. | Short term follow-up: No significant difference in sedentary time in minutes between intervention and control group (β = 1.5, p = 0.68) ES 0.03 No significant difference in screen time (min/day) between the intervention and the control group (β = − 2.6, p = 0.79) ES − 0.03 Long term follow-up: A significant difference on sedentary time in minutes (β = − 9.2, p = 0.03) between the intervention and control group ES − 0.21. No significant difference in screen time (min/day) between the intervention and the control group (β = − 16.5, p = 0.10) ES − 0.22. | Short term follow-up: No significant differences of ‘servings in the previous weekday’ between intervention and control group for fruit juice (β = − 0.24, p = 0.16) ES − 0.37; soft drink/sugar syrup (β = − 0.28, p = 0.25) ES − 0.60; flavoured milk (β = − 0.47, p = 0.15) ES − 0.93; vegetables (β = 0.15, p = 0.22) ES 0.20; snacks (β = − 0.57, p = 0.08) ES − 1.06; fruits (β = − 0.15, p = 0.13) ES − 0.16; sweets/chocolate (β = − 0.38, p = 0.10) ES − 0.58; cakes/buns/cookies (β = 0.00, p = 1.00) ES 0; ice cream (β-0.22, p = 0.22) ES − 0.29 Significant difference on aggregated variables ‘unhealthy food’ (β = − 0.32, p = 0.01); ‘unhealthy drink’ (β = − 0.51, p = 0.01) between intervention and control group. No significant difference in aggregated variable ‘healthy food’ (β = − 0.02, p = 0.79) between the intervention and control group. Long term follow-up: No significant differences of ‘servings in the previous weekday’ between intervention and control group for fruit juice (β = − 0.09, p = 0.70) ES − 0.14; soft drink/sugar syrup (β = + 0.02, p = 0.95) 0.04; flavoured milk (β = − 0.04, p = 0.92) ES − 0.07; vegetables (β = + 0.02, p = 0.85) ES 0.03; snacks (β = − 0.46, p = 0.19) ES − 0.82; fruits (β = + 0.03, p = 0.76) ES 0.03; sweets/chocolate (β = − 0.26, p = 0.29) ES − 0.39; cakes/buns/cookies (β = − 0.33, p = 0.12) ES − 0.43; ice-cream (β = − 0.22, p = 0.30) ES − 0.29. No significant differences on aggregated variables ‘unhealthy food’ (β = − 0.15, p = 0.42); ‘unhealthy drink’ (β = 0.05, p = 0.83); and ‘healthy food’ (β = − 0.03, p = 0.68) between the intervention and the control group. |
Puder et al. (2011) [45] | Short term follow-up: No significant difference in BMI change between the intervention and control group (∆-0.07, p = 0.31). ES 0.07 Significant reductions in percentage body fat (∆-1.1, p = 0.02) and sum of skinfolds (∆-2.78, p = 0.001) in the intervention group compared to the control group. ES − 0.15, − 0.02, respectively Significantly lower increase in waist circumference (∆-1.0, p = 0.001) in the intervention group compared to the control group. ES − 0.24 | Short term follow-up: Significantly higher increase in aerobic fitness in the intervention group compared to the control group (∆ + 0.32, p = 0.01). ES 0.22 Significant improvement in motor agility (time to perform an obstacle course) in the intervention group compared to the control group (∆-0.54, p = 0.004). ES − 0.13 No significant difference in dynamic balance (∆ + 0.2, p = 0.35) and static balance (∆ = + 19.4, p = 0.18) between the intervention and control group. ES 0.06, 0.04, respectively No significant difference in TPA (cpm, ∆-12.3, p = 0.54) between the intervention and control group. ES 0.012 | Short term follow-up: Significant difference in media use (min/day) between the intervention and control group (∆-13.4, p = 0.03). ES − 0.22 | Short term follow-up: Significant difference in proportion healthy eaters between the intervention and the control group (∆ + 1.9, p = 0.04). |
Roth et al. (2015) [46] | Short term follow-up: No significant difference between the intervention and control group on BMI (centile, ∆ + 0.244, p = 0.857); and sum of four skinfolds (mm, ∆ + 1.548, p = 0.272). ES 0.023, − 0.06 respectively Long term follow-up: No significant difference between the intervention and the control group on BMI (centile, ∆ + 0.103, p = 0.949); and sum of four skinfolds (mm, ∆ + 0.305, p = 0.846). ES 0.05, 0.03, respectively | Short term follow-up: No significant (Bonferroni adjusted α) difference in MVPA between the intervention and the control group (∆ + 0.005, p = 0.049). Significant increase in motor skills performance (z-score) in children in the intervention group compared to the control group (∆ + 0.623, p = 0.001). Significant improvements in explosive leg strength (cm, ∆ + 3.209, p = 0.004) ES − 0.07; jumping coordination (jumps, ∆ + 1.451, p = 0.019) ES 0.20; and static balance (tips, ∆-1.474, p = 0.032) ES − 0.13, in the intervention group compared to the control group. No significant improvements in agility (seconds, ∆-0.628, p = 0.060) ES − 0.09; dynamic balance (% failure, ∆-0.015, p = 0.617); and throwing ability (% failure, ∆-0.020, p = 0.465). Long term follow-up No significant difference in MVPA between the intervention and the control group (∆ + 0.006, p = 0.859). Significant increase in motor skills performance (z-score) in children in the intervention group compared to the control group (∆ = + 0.590, p = 0.007). Significantly better improvements in the intervention group in agility (seconds, ∆-0.689, p = 0.034) ES − 0.11 and explosive leg strength (cm, ∆ = + 4.041, p = 0.007) ES 0.23. No significant differences between the intervention group and control group in static balance (tips, ∆-0.306, p = 0.629) ES − 0.05; jumping coordination (jumps, ∆ + 1.276, p = 0.089) ES 0.18; dynamic balance (% failure, ∆ + 0.051, p = 0.220); and throwing ability (% failure, ∆ + 0.006, p = 0898). | NA | NA |
Story et al. (2012) [47] | Short term follow-up: No significant difference between the intervention and the control group in BMI (kg/m2, ∆ + 0.34, p = 0.057) ES 0.07; BMI z (∆ + 0.01, p = 0.904) ES 0; triceps (mm, ∆ + 0.02, p = 0.978) ES 0.003; subscapular (mm, ∆ + 0.05, p = 0.909) ES 0.005; % body fat (∆0.90, p = 0.122) ES 0.07; and % obese (∆ + 2.11, p = 0.503) ES 0.04. A significant difference in % overweight (∆-10.14, p = 0.019) between the intervention and the control group. ES − 0.24 | Short term follow-up: A greater mean in PA (combined from recess and PE class in min/week) in the intervention group compared to the control group (NS). | NA | Short term follow-up: Nutrients from school menus: A significant difference between the intervention and control group in % total fat calories (∆-8.00, p = 0.004); and % calories saturated fat (∆-4.08, p = 0.002). No significant difference between the intervention and control group in kilocalories (∆-37.3, p = 0.691) ES − 0.0007; carbohydrate (g, ∆ + 11.5, p = 0.487) ES 1.4; protein (g, ∆-0.26, p = 0.933) ES − 0.13; fat (g, ∆-7.81, p = 0.085) ES − 2.22; iron (mg, − 0.16, p = 0.877) ES − 0.33; magnesium (mg, ∆ + 3.9, p = 0.740) ES − 0.79; calcium (mg, ∆ + 64, p = 0.827) ES 0.39; sodium (mg, ∆-96, p = 0.624) ES − 0.84; vitamin A (RAE, ∆ = + 36.6, p = 0.643) ES 1.01; vitamin D IU (∆ = + 0.28, p = 0.505) ES 1.33; folate (mg, ∆ = + 13.6, p = 0.581) ES 1.01; and sugar added (g, ∆-2.66, p = 0.763) ES − 0.36 Food intake reported by parents: Significant difference in intake times per day of sweetened beverages (∆-0.28, p = 0.024); whole milk (∆-0.22, p = 0.011); and chocolate milk (∆-0.17, p = 0.025) between the intervention and control group. No significant difference in intake times per day of vegetables (∆ + 0.02, p = 0.788); fruits (∆ + 0.07, p = 0.269); skim milk (∆ + 0.12, p = 0.138); 100% juice (∆-0.03, p = 0.689); bottled water (∆ + 0.09, p = 0.413); and fast food (∆ + 0.04, p = 0.374. |
Wasenius et al. (2018) [58] | NR | Short term follow-up: Significant difference in locomotor skills between intervention and control group (∆ + 2.4, p < 0.001) ES 1.31. No significant difference between intervention and control group on object control skills (∆ + 0.5, p = 1.0) ES 0.53, sum of raw scores (∆ + 2.8, p = 0.333) ES 1.48 or Gross Motor Quotient (∆ + 3.2, p = 0.498) ES 1.30. TPA: NR | NA | NA |
Williams et al. (2014) [48] | NA | NA | NA | Short term follow-up: Significant difference between the intervention and control group in proportion of children that used low fat/fat-free milk at home (OR1.39, p < 0.05) ES 0.19; and cups of vegetables child consumed at home (∆ + 0.12, p < 0.05) ES 0.12. No significant difference in cups of fruit child consumed at home (∆ + 0.06, NS) ES 0.04; and cups of fruits and vegetables child consumed at home (∆ + 0.19, NS) ES 0.10 between the intervention and control group. Significant difference between the intervention and control group in no. of days the child helped self/requested vegetable as snack (∆0.34, p < 0.05) ES 0.14. No significant difference between intervention and control group in no. of days the child helped self/requested fruit as snack (∆ + 0.24, NS) ES 0.09; no. of days parent offered vegetable as snack (∆ + 0.25, NS) ES 0.11; and no. of days parent offered fruit as snack (∆0.00, NS) ES 0. |
Yin et al. (2014) [49] | Short term follow-up: No significant difference between intervention group and control group in BMI z-score (∆-0.09, p < 0.09) ES − 0.04. | Short term follow-up: Significant difference between the intervention and control group in gross motor development (∆1.15, p < 0.001) ES 0.03 A significantly higher level of active play in the intervention group compared to the control group (data not available). | NA | Short term follow-up: Significantly more fruit and vegetables consumption in the intervention group (0.19 serving, p < 0.05) and low-fat milk (0.06 serving, p < 0.006) than in the control group. No reporting on grain products. No significant change in meat consumption. |
Zhou et al. (2014) [50] | Short term follow-up: No significant difference between intervention and control group for BMI (kg/m2, ∆0.19, NS) ES 0.10; and BMI z-score (∆0.15, NS) ES 0.10. Significant difference between intervention and control group for % body fat (∆-1.2, p = 0.0001) ES − 0.34; fat mass (kg, ∆-0.55, p = 0.0001) ES − 0.61; and muscle mass (kg, ∆ + 0.48, p = 0.0001) ES 0.32. | Short term follow-up: Significant difference between the intervention and control group in 20 m agility run (seconds, ∆-0.74, p = 0.0001) ES − 0.39; broad jump (cm, ∆8.09, p = 0.0001) ES 0.46; tennis ball throw (m, ∆ + 0.52, p = 0.006); sit-and-reach (cm, ∆ + 0.88, p = 0.03) ES 0.35; balance beam walk (seconds, ∆-2.02, p = 0.0001) ES − 0.15; 20 m crawl (seconds, ∆-3.36, p = 0.0001) ES − 0.55; and 30 m sprint (seconds, ∆-0.45, p = 0.02) ES − 0.21 | NA | NA |