Research
Six year follow-up of students who participated in a school-based physical activity intervention: a longitudinal cohort study
-
* Corresponding author: Lisa M Barnett lisa.barnett@deakin.edu.au
1 Faculty of Health, Medicine, Nursing and Behavioural Sciences, Deakin University, Burwood Highway, Melbourne, Australia
2 Health Promotion Unit, North Coast Area Health Service, Lismore, NSW Australia
3 Faculty of Education and Arts, University of Newcastle, Newcastle NSW Australia
4 Graduate Research College, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW Australia
5 New York Academy of Medicine, 1216 Fifth Ave, New York, New York, USA
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2009, 6:48 doi:10.1186/1479-5868-6-48
Published: 29 July 2009Abstract
Background
The purpose of this paper was to evaluate the long-term impact of a childhood motor skill intervention on adolescent motor skills and physical activity.
Methods
In 2006, we undertook a follow-up of motor skill proficiency (catch, kick, throw, vertical jump, side gallop) and physical activity in adolescents who had participated in a one-year primary school intervention Move It Groove It (MIGI) in 2000. Logistic regression models were analysed for each skill to determine whether the probability of children in the intervention group achieving mastery or near mastery was either maintained or had increased in subsequent years, relative to controls. In these models the main predictor variable was intervention status, with adjustment for gender, grade, and skill level in 2000. A general linear model, controlling for gender and grade, examined whether former intervention students spent more time in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity at follow-up than control students.
Results
Half (52%, n = 481) of the 928 MIGI participants were located in 28 schools, with 276 (57%) assessed. 52% were female, 58% in Grade 10, 40% in Grade 11 and 54% were former intervention students. At follow-up, intervention students had improved their catch ability relative to controls and were five times more likely to be able to catch: ORcatch = 5.51, CI (1.95 – 15.55), but had lost their advantage in the throw and kick: ORthrow = .43, CI (.23 – .82), ORkick = .39, CI (.20 – .78). For the other skills, intervention students appeared to maintain their advantage: ORjump = 1.14, CI (.56 – 2.34), ORgallop = 1.24, CI (.55 – 2.79). Intervention students were no more active at follow-up.
Conclusion
Six years after the 12-month MIGI intervention, whilst intervention students had increased their advantage relative to controls in one skill, and appeared to maintain their advantage in two, they lost their advantage in two skills and were no more active than controls at follow up. More longitudinal research is needed to explore whether gains in motor skill proficiency in children can be sustained and to determine the intervention characteristics that translate to subsequent physical activity.