Do school-based physical activity interventions increase or reduce inequalities in health?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about the effectiveness of school-based health promotion on physical activity inequalities among children from low-income areas. This study compared the two-year change in physical activity among 10-11 year-old children attending schools with and without health promotion programs by activity level, body weight status, and socioeconomic backgrounds to assess whether health promotion programs reduce or exacerbate health inequalities. This was a quasi-experimental trial of a Comprehensive School Health (CSH) program implemented in schools located in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighbourhoods in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. In the spring of 2009 and 2011, pedometer (7 full days) and demographic data were collected from cross-sectional samples of grade five children from 10 intervention and 20 comparison schools. Socioeconomic status was determined from parent self-report. Low-active, active, and high-active children were defined according to step-count tertiles. Multilevel linear regression methods adjusted for potential confounders were used to assess the relative inequity in physical activity and were compared between groups and over-time. In 2009, a greater proportion of students in the intervention schools were overweight (38% vs. 31% p = 0.03) and were less active (10,827 vs. 12,265 steps/day p < 0.001). Two years later, the relative difference in step-counts between intervention and comparison schools reduced from -15.5% to 0% among low-active students, from -13.4% to 0% among active students, and from -15.1% to -2.7% among high-active students. The relative difference between intervention and comparison schools reduced from -11.1% to -1.6% among normal weight students, from -16.8% to -1.4% among overweight students, and was balanced across socioeconomic subgroups. These findings demonstrate that CSH programs implemented in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighbourhoods reduced inequalities in physical activity. Investments in school-based health promotion are a viable, promising, and important approach to improve physical activity and prevent childhood obesity, and may also reduce inequalities in health.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".