Contextual factors related to implementation of classroom physical activity breaks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brief structured physical activity in the classroom is effective for increasing student physical activity. The present study investigated the association between implementation-related contextual factors and intervention implementation after adoption of a structured classroom physical activity intervention. Six elementary-school districts adopted structured classroom physical activity programs in 2013-2014. Implementation contextual factors and intervention implementation (structured physical activity provided in past week or month, yes/no) were assessed using surveys of 337 classroom teachers from 24 schools. Mixed-effects models accounted for the nested design. Availability of resources (yes/no, ORs = 1.91-2.93) and implementation climate z-scores (ORs = 1.36-1.47) were consistently associated with implementation. Teacher-perceived classroom behavior benefits (OR = 1.29) but not student enjoyment or health benefits, and time (OR = 2.32) and academic (OR = 1.63) barriers but not student cooperation barriers were associated with implementation (all z-scores). Four implementation contextual factor composites had an additive association with implementation (OR = 1.64 for each additional favorable composite). Training and technical assistance alone may not support a large proportion of teachers to implement structured classroom physical activity. In addition to lack of time and interference with academic lessons, school climate related to whether administrators and other teachers were supportive of the intervention were key factors explaining whether teachers implemented the intervention. Evidence-based implementation strategies are needed for effectively communicating the benefits of classroom physical activity on student behavior and improving teacher and administrator climate/attitudes around classroom physical activity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".