A cluster randomised controlled trial of an intervention to increase the implementation of school physical activity policies and guidelines: study protocol for the physically active children in education (PACE) study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In an attempt to improve children's physical activity levels governments have introduced policies specifying the minimum time schools are to schedule physical activity each week. Despite this, the majority of schools in many jurisdictions fail to implement these policies. This study will assess the effectiveness of a multi-component implementation strategy on increasing the minutes of planned physical activity scheduled by primary school teachers each week. METHODS: A cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted in 62 primary schools in the Hunter New England region of New South Wales, Australia. Schools will be randomly allocated to receive either a multi-component implementation strategy that includes; obtaining executive support, training in-school champions, provision of tools and resources, implementation prompts, reminders and feedback; or usual practice. The study will employ an effectiveness-implementation hybrid design, assessing both policy implementation and individual (student) behavioural outcomes. The primary trial outcome of mean minutes of physical activity scheduled by classroom teachers across the school week will be measured via teacher log-book at baseline and approximately 12 and 18 months post baseline. A nested evaluation of the impact of policy implementation on child physical activity will be undertaken of students in Grades 2 and 3. Analyses will be performed using an intention to treat framework. Linear mixed effects regression models will be used to assess intervention effects on the primary outcome at both follow-up periods. DISCUSSION: This study will be the one of the first well powered randomised trials internationally to examine the impact of an implementation strategy for a physical activity policy in primary schools and will address a fundamental research translation gap. Given the dearth of research, the findings will be important in informing future implementation efforts in this setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTR ACTRN12617001265369 version 1 registered 1st September 2017.
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 | 0.036 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.008 |
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".