↓ Skip to main content

The Active for Life Year 5 (AFLY5) school-based cluster randomised controlled trial: effect on potential mediators

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
235 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Active for Life Year 5 (AFLY5) school-based cluster randomised controlled trial: effect on potential mediators
Published in
BMC Public Health, January 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-2734-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Debbie A. Lawlor, Laura D. Howe, Emma L. Anderson, Ruth R. Kipping, Rona Campbell, Sian Wells, Catherine R. Chittleborough, Tim J. Peters, Russell Jago

Abstract

Active for life year 5 (AFLY5) is a school-based intervention, based on social cognitive theory, which aims to promote healthy levels of physical activity and healthy eating by improving a child's self-efficacy to make healthy choices, their knowledge of how to make such choices and prompting parents to support their children to make healthy choices. Previously published results showed no effect on the three primary outcomes and beneficial effects on three of nine secondary outcomes (time spent screen-viewing at weekends, consumption of snacks and of high energy drinks). This paper aims to determine the effect of the intervention on potential mediators. We conducted a cluster RCT of a school-based intervention, with allocation concealed by use of a remote system. The study was undertaken in the South West of England between 2011 and 2013. Participants were school children who were age 8-9 years at baseline assessment and 9-10 years during the intervention. Potential mediators were assessed at the end of the intervention. The intervention consisted of teacher training, provision of all materials required for lessons and homeworks and written materials for school newsletters and parents. The ten potential mediators were child-reported self-efficacy for physical activity and fruit and vegetable consumption, perceived parental logistic support and modelling for their child's physical activity, parental efforts to limit their child's sedentary behaviour and modelling of healthy fruit and vegetable consumption, together with a knowledge assessment. We successfully recruited 60 schools with over 2,221 children; valid data for the 10 mediators were available for 87 % to 96 % of participants. Three of the ten potential mediators were greater in the intervention, compared with the control group: fruit and vegetable self-efficacy 2.2 units (95 % CI: 0.7 to 3.8), assessed on a scale 26 to 130; child-reported maternal limitation of sedentary behaviour 0.5 (0.1 to 0.8), scale 4 to 16; and knowledge 0.5 (0.2, 0.7) scale 0 to 9. Reported maternal limitation of sedentary behaviour and the child's knowledge explained 23 % of the effect of the intervention on reducing time spent on sedentary behaviour at the weekend. There was no effect on other mediators. Our findings suggest that the effect of the AFLY5 intervention on reducing screen-viewing at weekends was partially mediated by an effect on mothers limiting their child's time spent sedentary and on increasing the child's knowledge about healthy behaviour. However, overall our findings suggest that theory driven interventions, like AFLY5, can fail to influence most potential mediators and this may explain the failure of the intervention to improve most primary and secondary outcomes. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN50133740 . Registered 17/03/2011.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 235 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 235 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 13%
Researcher 28 12%
Student > Bachelor 23 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 4%
Other 26 11%
Unknown 77 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 42 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 32 14%
Sports and Recreations 21 9%
Psychology 14 6%
Social Sciences 11 5%
Other 27 11%
Unknown 88 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 January 2016.
All research outputs
#13,220,363
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#9,292
of 14,883 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,318
of 395,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#151
of 263 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,883 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 395,188 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 263 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.