Feasibility and Acceptability of a Classroom-Based Active Breaks Intervention for 8–12-Year-Old Children

Figures & data

Table 1. Descriptive characteristics of the participants, by group and total sample.

		Control (n = 70)	Intervention (n = 76)	Overall (n = 146)
Age	Mean ± SD	10.4 ± 0.9	10.4 ± 0.6	10.4 ± 0.7
Sex, n (%)	Male	32 (45.7%)	34 (44.7%)	66 (45.2%)
	Female	38 (54.3%)	42 (55.3%)	80 (54.8%)
SES decile, n (%)	Decile 2	20 (28.6%)	25 (32.9%)	45 (30.8%)
	Decile 3	N/A	28 (36.8%)	28 (19.2%)
	Decile 4	13 (18.6%)	23 (30.3%)	36 (24.7%
	Decile 5	37 (52.9%)	N/A	37 (25.3%)

SES = socioeconomic status.

Figure 1. A CONSORT diagram for the Activity Breaks pilot cluster RCT. *Only participants that provided both baseline and postintervention data were included within subsequent analyses.

Table 2. Primary quotes with supporting summaries reported from the teacher interviews.

Themes	Sub-themes	Description	Example Quotation
Classroom Application	Use	All teachers used the AB	“We did use it for 6-week” (T1)
	Frequency	All teachers used the AB most days with one teacher using it every day, 3 times per day	“Most days yes. There were a couple of days that we were out of school for transition events or trips that we weren’t able to use it, but on the whole, it was mostly every single day, 3 times” (T2) “Yeah we did it 3 times per day, every day”(T3)
Implementation of AB Cards	Ease of implementation	Most teachers found the AB easy to implement into the classroom	“It was easy to implement because it was all there for us [the cards]” (T2) “Aw it was dead easy, really really easy. It [AB] kind of became part of the daily routine … it was really really easy to use” (T3)
	Teacher adaptions to implementation	Playing music during the AB. Selecting a weekly AB class champion to set alarms for each AB. Different children selecting the AB cards to be used.	“I just put it along with music and the first few weeks I had to explain the cards, but after that they knew them so I just held them up and let the kids see it which was fine” (T1) “We had a child in the class who was responsible for setting an alarm and at the alarm every day we would just drop everything and do it [AB]” (T2) “I tried to involve the kids by letting them select the cards to make it more fun and less prescriptive for them” (T3)
	Positive experience for children (teacher’s opinion)	Most children enjoyed participating in the AB	“The kids really enjoyed it [AB], they responded well to it, it’s become part of their daily routine” (T3)
	Lack of time limited implementation	Most teachers reporting limited time hindered their experience of the	“Sometimes we didn’t always have time just because primary 7 is really busy and there’s lots going on … trying to spare 5-min to do things, just because of transitions and things, primary 7 is really busy, but I think possibly in another class it might be a bit easier” (T1)
Impact of AB intervention	Classroom behavior and attention	Most teachers reported a positive influence on their class One teacher reported a negative behavior influence on their class	“I would say their cognitive skills increased a bit after they done them. I think the mind is working more. I would say answering more questions kind of thing, more eager to answer instead of just sitting at their tables” (T4) “It totally releases all that energy and they’re [the class] back focussed … it’s done wonders for them … children who didn’t finish tasks were finishing tasks and actually working quite well and progressing at a better speed than what they would be expected to do” (T3) “I think it makes them more hyper, really hyper. As soon as they did it [AB] they’re more hyper” (T4)
	Long-term use	Some teachers intended to continue using the Activity Breaks with their class	“Having used it [AB], I still use it and will use it again because I think actually we do get a better standard of work out of the kids and the kids respond well to it and they like doing it, it breaks it up for them, sometimes it gets monotonous and that wee five minutes can totally re-group and bring them back” (T3)

AB = Activity Breaks.

Table 3. Effects of the activity break intervention.

	Group^a B (95%CI)
ActiGraph GT3X+ (n = 97)
Inactive time (min.d-^1)	−0.3 (−12.93, 10.32)
AA (mg)	2.62 (−4.96, 10.14)
IG	−0.05 (−0.22, 0.11)
LPA (min.d^−1)	0.19 (−8.06, 10.1)
MVPA (min.d^−1)	0.95 (−2.43, 4.41)
M60ACC (mg)	13.95 (−31.38, 59.21)
M30ACC (mg)	37.85 (−38.31, 113.82)
M2ACC (mg)	48.73 (−172.82, 288.26)
ActivPAL (n = 76)
Sitting time (min.d^−1)	−27.19 (−36.84, −17.17)*
Standing time (min.d^−1)	23.51 (14.1, 32.45)*
No of sit to stand transitions	16.1 (4.7, 26.79)*
d2 test (n = 84)
TN-E (score)	14.53 (−23.01, 52.06)
CP (score)	1.78 (−12.89, 16.45)

^aCoefficients are estimated for the intervention group, adjusted for sex, time and baseline outcome.

Data are presented as coefficients and 95% CI.

*Coefficients are significant.