Effects of the 3-year Sigue la Huella intervention on sedentary time in secondary school students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To examine the effects of the Sigue la Huella (Follow the Footstep) intervention on adolescents' daily sedentary time (ST). METHODS: This quasi-experimental, cohort study took place in four secondary schools in Huesca (Spain) during the 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 academic years (students aged 12-15 years). Two schools were assigned to the experimental condition (n = 368) and two schools to the control condition (n = 314). Sigue la Huella adopted a whole school approach and used both curricular and non-curricular intervention channels to empower students to make better decisions. ST was measured for 7 days on four occasions using accelerometers. Growth curve models were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: In the model with all participants, a significant interaction indicated that the effect of the intervention was dependent on the study cohort considered. While in cohort 1 there were no significant differences in rate of linear change of ST between the experimental and the control group (P = 0.148), in cohorts 2 and 3 significant differences were observed in favor of the experimental group (β = -13.88, 95% CI = -25.00 to -2.76, P = 0.015; β = -76.73, 95% CI = -110.68 to -42.78, P < 0.001), independent of type of school (public vs. private) and gender. CONCLUSIONS: Sigue la Huella had mainly a protective effect in two of the three study cohorts. Whereas in cohort 2 the intervention prevented increases in ST, in cohort 3 the intervention reduced considerably the increase in ST noted in the control group.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".