Table 2 Academic outcomes: findings from systematic reviews and meta-analyses (ordered by quality rating)
Authors | Population | Systematic review results | Meta-analysis resultsc |
|---|---|---|---|
High-quality reviews | |||
Martin et al. [31] | Overweight or obese children (3–18 years) | No effects of PA on maths, reading or language were found (moderate quality evidence) Maths (s = 3): no evidence for an effect Reading (s = 2): no evidence for an effect Language (s = 2): no evidence for an effect | Maths: 0.49 (−0.04, 1.01), I2 =57% (s = 2) Reading: 0.10 (−0.30, 0.49), I2 =63% (s = 2) Language: not performed |
Low-quality reviews | |||
Singh et al. [25] | Children and adolescents (3–16 years) | 7 high-quality studies: 15/25 analysed constructs (60%) found a beneficial effect, leading to inconclusive evidence; no studies reported adverse effects of PA on academic achievement Maths: Strong evidence for PA on maths performance (86% of outcomes are beneficial) Language: Inconclusive evidence for language performance (27% of outcomes are beneficial) | NA |
Critically low-quality reviews | |||
Álvarez-Bueno et al. [23] | Healthy children and adolescents (4–13 years) | Language: 4/9 studies reported significant improvements in the intervention group Maths: 13/18 studies reported significant improvements in the intervention group Reading: 5/10 studies reported significant improvements in the intervention group Composite scores: 2/5 studies reported significant differences between the groups Other subjects: 1/3 studies reported improvements after the PA intervention | Language:d =0.16 (−0.06, 0.37), I2 =71.7% (s = 3, k = 7) Maths:d =0.21 (0.09, 0.33), I2 =57.8% (s = 10, k = 16)b Reading:d =0.13 (0.02, 0.24), I2 =25.5% (s = 5, k = 10) Composite scores:d =0.26 (0.07, 0.45), I2 =75.6% (s = 4, k = 8) |
de Greeff et al. [24] | Primary school children (6–12 years) | Academic achievement: 9/14 reported positive findings on at least 1 outcome measure, 5 reported no significant findings | Academic performance:g =0.26 (0.02, 0.49), I2 =39% (k = 4, s = 3) Maths:g =0.09 (−0.17, 0.35), I2< 0.01% (s = 1, k = 2) Reading:g =0.15 (−0.15, 0.46), I2 =35.31% (s = 2, k = 2) Spelling:g =0.34 (−0.23, 0.92), I2 = NA (s = 1, k = 1) |
Gunnell et al. [27]a | Healthy children (1–17.99 years) | Academic achievement and intelligence: mixed evidence. PA vs nonea(n = 2202 participants, s = 9): 5/9 —, 1/9 ↑, 3/9 — ↑ Multiple comparisons (n = 1141, s = 4): 3/4 ↑, 1/4 — ↑↓ PA vs PA (n = 546, s = 5): 3/5 ↑, 1/5 — ↑, 1/5 — | Not performed given heterogeneity of study designs, PA exposures and outcomes |
Li et al. [30] | Healthy adolescents (13–18 years) | 1/1 studies showed a beneficial effect on academic performance. Of two parameters, only one showed significance | NA |
Martin and Murtagh [32] | Children (5–12 years) | 4/4 reported some positive effects | NA |
Pucher, Boot, and Vries [34] | School-aged children | Across 4 studies: additional PA is not likely to affect academic performance negatively, and positive effects of PA have been demonstrated and are more likely when PE is delivered at vigorous levels and by a trained specialist/teacher | NA |
Lees and Hopkins [29] | Children and adolescents (< 19 years) | 3/3 showed positive effects on academic performance | NA |
Spruit et al. [26] | Children and adolescents (mean age 11–18) | Physical activity interventions are effective in improving academic achievement (s = 10) | Academic performance:d =0.367 (0.038, 0.69), (s = 10, k = 34) |
Mura et al. [33] | Children (3–18 years) | 10/16 studies showed an improvement in academic performance (maths (s = 4), reading (s = 1), overall academic achievement (s = 5)), in 6/16 it did not worsen academic performance | NA |
Haapala [28] | Children and adolescents (7–16 years) | Positive effect of PA on maths, reading and language skills in 3/4 studies. In 2/4 studies no significant differences between groups | NA |