Abstract
Aim
It is important to promote healthy lifestyles in youth through initiatives in school, which is a preferred setting to implement health-related interventions also targeted at families to be more effective. This study aimed to synthesise school-based interventions including homework and extracurricular activities for the promotion of healthy lifestyles, especially healthy nutrition and physical activity, in children and adolescents.
Methods
This systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Tool for Quality Assessment for randomized and non-randomized control trials, while the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology) guidelines were used for observational studies.
Results
From the 1356 studies identified, eight were included. Across studies, a significant effect was found in increasing fruit and vegetable consumption and reducing snack and sugar intake, while no effect was found for moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) unless for light PA (LPA) and step counts. The results of BMI and waist circumference are still unclear after performing a meta-analysis of three studies.
Conclusion
School-based interventions including homework and extracurricular activities were shown to improve nutritional behaviour, step counts, and LPA. Despite some statistically significant results, the effects of BMI and waist circumference are still unclear. Further studies are needed to demonstrate that these intervention s can represent an effective strategy for obesity prevention.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Background
Physical activity (PA) combined with healthy eating and sleeping habits are essential for many aspects of child health and development, including the prevention of chronic health conditions, such as overweight and obesity (Bull et al. 2020; Matricciani et al. 2019). To obtain these beneficial health outcomes, children and adolescents should practise at least an average of 60 min per day of moderate-to-vigorous intensity PA (MVPA) across the week, mostly aerobic, and incorporate 3 days a week of vigorous-intensity aerobic activities, as well as those that strengthen muscles and bones (Bull et al. 2020). Alongside this, sedentary behaviours, defined as activities performed in a sitting and/or reclining position with an energy expenditure lower than 1.5 MET, are more and more frequent, and new evidence suggests that higher time spent in sedentary behaviour, particularly screen time, is associated with poorer physical health outcomes such as lower fitness and poorer cardio-metabolic health (Carson et al. 2016; Katzmarzyk et al. 2019), and may increase obesity (Matusitz and McCormick 2012).
Good nutrition (defined as the intake of an adequate, well-balanced diet) is fundamental for good health throughout life (WHO 2014; Haines et al. 2019). The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organisation (WHO) emphasise the importance of increasing plant foods intake (fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts, and whole grains) and limiting the intake of fats (especially saturated and trans-fats), salt and energy from free sugars (such as those added to foods and drinks) (FAO and WHO 2019). Good habits in the consumption of fruit and vegetables during childhood are related to lower adiposity, lower cardiometabolic risk factors, and higher academic performance (Janssen and Leblanc 2010; Ness et al. 2007; Ekelund et al. 2012).
In this scenario, it is increasingly essential to promote healthy lifestyle projects and initiatives, particularly in school, which is a preferred setting to promote health and implement health-related interventions (Pulimeno et al. 2020). The school setting has indeed been identified as an ideal environment for health promotion interventions because it is an inclusive place where it is possible to avoid socio-economic inequalities which can occur in the community and in other facilities such as sports clubs.
Furthermore, children and adolescents spend a significant amount of time in school, where they are also exposed to supportive environments such as school health policies, physical and nutrition education, and PA during school hours (Story et al. 2009).
Growing evidence from systematic reviews shows that school-based interventions are effective in improving healthy lifestyles in youth (Wolfenden et al. 2022; Brown et al. 2019; Dobbins et al. 2013). The majority of the literature has investigated the effectiveness of school-based intervention on multidisciplinary curricular activities (i.e., active breaks, physically active lessons, physical education classes, and nutritional intervention) (Masini et al. 2020a, b; Masini et al. 2020a, b). However, school-based interventions to promote healthy lifestyles are not always possible due to the demands of the curriculum.
Furthermore, some reviews have found that interventions not only focused on schools but also targeted on extracurricular time are likely to be most effective (Dobbins et al. 2013; Wang et al. 2015). Therefore, long-term behavioural change may be more achievable when the environment outside the school context (i.e., the family and community settings) is considered and reinforces key contents delivered during school time. Thus, school-based interventions with extracurricular activities (i.e., healthy homework such as creating a healthy plate, biking for 10 km during week-end) and with challenges’ components (i.e., being in competition with other students on healthy homework such as “Who is the first student who performed 10 km on foot today?”), could maximise and potentially improve the success of this type of intervention. Therefore, the concepts of extracurricular activities, challenges, and homework promoting health would be taken into account in school-based interventions (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2013).
There is not much evidence on this type of interventions, and therefore there is a need for more investigations and analysis on this topic. In this scenario, the present systematic review aims to evaluate and synthesise school-based interventions, which include extracurricular activities and homework promoting healthy lifestyles (PA, healthy diet, and sleep hygiene) in children and adolescents, focusing on efficacy over time. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review focused on interventions organised from the school setting and translated to the out-of-school environment.
Methods
Search strategy and data sources
The present systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA recommendations and the criteria of the reporting of meta-analysis guidelines (Page et al. 2021). The protocol of the systematic review was previously documented in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration no. CRD42021281011). We developed a PICOS (patients, interventions, comparators, outcomes and study design) using the following search terms to address the primary search objective: (P) Healthy school children and school adolescents aged 6–18, (I) Primary and secondary school-based healthy lifestyle intervention involving homework and challenges in extracurricular time, (C) Usual lessons or no intervention, (O) PA related behaviours, sedentary related behaviours, nutrition-related behaviours, sleep-related behaviours, anthropometric outcomes, physical fitness, well-being, quality of life, health status, and (S) randomized controlled trial (RCT), clinical trial, clinical study, case report, and observational study (i.e., cohort studies, longitudinal studies) with original primary data. A systematic search of the following scientific databases: Medline (PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central), CINAHL (EBSCO), Psycinfo (EBSCO) was performed to identify all published articles about school-based interventions, which included extracurricular activities and homework, to promote healthy lifestyle in children and adolescents. We searched electronic databases, with no time restriction and up to July 2020.
Search strategy was created and adapted, when necessary to the different databases, using the following boolean expression: [(Homework* OR Extra-curricul* OR Extracurricul* OR After-school) AND (Child* OR Adolescent* OR Teen*) AND (Exercises OR “Physical Activit*”, Physical OR “Activity Physical” OR “Physical Activities” OR “Exercise Physical” OR “Exercises Physical” OR “Physical Exercise” OR “Physical Exercises” OR “Acute Exercise” OR “Acute Exercises” OR “Exercise Acute” OR “Exercises Acute” OR “Exercise Aerobic” OR “Aerobic Exercise” OR “Aerobic Exercises” OR Exercises Aerobic OR Exercise Training OR Exercise Trainings OR Training Exercise OR Trainings Exercise) AND (“Lifestyle Healthy” OR “Lifestyles Healthy” OR “Healthy Life Styles” OR “Healthy Lifestyles” OR “Healthy Life Style” OR Life Style Healthy OR Life Styles Healthy OR “healthy behavio*” OR “healthy habit*” OR “Sedentary Behavio*” OR “Behavior Sedentary” OR “Sedentary Behaviors” OR “Sedentary Lifestyle” OR “Lifestyle Sedentary” OR “Physical Inactivity” OR “Inactivity Physical” OR “Lack of Physical Activity” OR “Sedentary Time” OR “Sedentary Times” OR “Time Sedentary” OR “Eating Habit*” OR “Eating Habits” OR “Eating Habit” OR “Habit Eating” OR “Dietary Habits” OR “Dietary Habit” OR “Habit Dietary” OR nutrition* OR diet* OR “Sleeping Habit*” OR “Sleeping Habits” OR “Sleep Habits” OR “Habit Sleep” OR “Habits Sleep” OR “Sleep Habit” OR “Sleeping Habit” OR “Habit Sleeping” OR “Habits Sleeping” OR “Sleep Hygiene”)].
Furthermore, a grey literature search and hand search were performed to retrieve other eligible papers; we examined references cited in the primary papers to identify additional papers, in accordance with the snowball technique (Greenhalgh and Peacock 2005).
The PICOS inclusion and exclusion criteria used to collect papers are summarised in Table 1.
Data extraction and quality assessments
Screening and checking phases followed different steps. First of all, the reviewers independently and blindly screened eligible papers, after the removal of duplicates, reading titles, and abstracts in order to select pertinent papers. After the first screening, the reviewers retrieved and read the full text of all potentially eligible studies. Disagreements regarding the eligibility of the studies for inclusion were resolved by discussion among all the researchers’ groups, and if more information was necessary the study authors were contacted. Finally, the investigators independently — following the standardised rules for literature collection provided by the Cochrane Reviewers handbook (Higgins 2008) — extracted the data of the included studies, focusing on the following characteristics: author, country, study design, population, intervention, outcomes, and results were tabulated as mean ± SD where possible.
The studies included in the final step were blindly and independently assessed for the risk of bias separately by researchers (AA, AS, GS, GZ) using the “Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2)” (Sterne et al. 2019), the “Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) tool for observational studies” (Cuschieri 2019) and “The Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies – of Interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool” (Sterne et al. 2016). Any disagreement between reviewers was solved through discussion with tiebreakers (AM, SM). This methodological choice was supported by the PRISMA guidelines (Moher et al. 2009).
The RoB-2 tool analyses different bias domains: bias arising from the randomization process; bias due to deviations from intended interventions, bias due to missing outcome data, bias in the measurement of the outcome, and bias in the selection of the reported result. The response options for the signaling questions in each domain are yes/probably yes/probably no/no; no information.
These categories provide the basis for an overall risk-of-bias judgement for the specific trial result being assessed in low risk of bias, some concerns, and high risk of bias.
The ROBINS-I scale uses seven different domains: bias due to confounding; bias in the selection of participants in the study, bias in classification of interventions, bias due to deviations from intended interventions, bias due to missing data, bias in the measurement of outcomes, and bias in the selection of the reported result. The response options for each domain level were the same as RoB-2, but the overall risk of bias judgment was divided into low risk, moderate risk, serious risk, and critical risk of bias.
The STROBE statement is a 22-item tool divided into three different checklists: cohort study, cross-sectional and case report studies. In line with the previous study, we adopted a cut-off for three levels of scores: 0–14 poor quality (high risk of bias), 15–25 intermediate qualities (some concerns), and 26–33 good quality (low risk of bias).
Meta-analysis
We performed separate meta-analyses for the different variables. Only comparable studies for measurement and statistical methods were included. If possible, pre-post intervention values were compared between experimental groups (EG) and control groups (CG). We analysed statistical heterogeneity to test the strength of matching the studies for meta-analysis, evaluating heterogeneity by the use of graphic forest plots and by calculating the I2 statistic. I2 statistic ≥ 50% was considered as a threshold for substantial heterogeneity. We used a random-effect model when studies were heterogeneous and lower than five, in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, following the method of DerSimonian and Laird to compute the random effects estimates for the corresponding statistics (Higgins et al. 2003; DerSimonian and Laird 1986). Rev-Man Program (Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014) was used to perform meta-analyses and forest plots to show graphically effect estimates with 95% CIs for the single trials selected for meta-analysis and pooled results.
Results
Study selection and characteristics
Through database browsing and hand-searching a total of 1356 articles were identified (Fig. 1). Papers were published from 1999 to 2021. Considering articles identified from databases, 585 were excluded because they were duplicated, and 625 were excluded following abstract reading. Of the 142 articles deemed eligible, two were excluded because no full text was found, and therefore the full text of 140 articles was read. Eventually, 132 were excluded because they matched the exclusion criteria, and only eight were considered relevant (Fairclough et al. 2013; Kipping et al. 2014, 2012; Anderson et al. 2016; Lloyd et al. 2018; Duncan et al. 2011, 2019; Friel et al. 1999). All the records identified from hand-searching were excluded after reading the full text.
The main reasons for exclusion in the first step (abstract reading) were: no intervention present in the study (36%) and not school-based (25%). After the full-text reading (considering both reports from databases and hand-searching), the main cause of exclusion was the implementation of other types of interventions (42%).
Risk of bias
Each study was evaluated for quality assessment, differentiating RCTs from quasi-experimental and observational studies. In accordance with the revised Cochrane Tool for Quality Assessment, the six studies categorised as RCTs scored a risk of bias from low to some concern. Four studies resulted in low risk of bias (Fairclough et al. 2013; Kipping et al. 2014; Anderson et al. 2016; Lloyd et al. 2018) and two with some concerns (Duncan et al. 2011, 2019) (Table 2). In particular, the first study performed by Duncan et al. in 2011 presented some concerns regarding the first domain of the randomization process, and the second focused on deviations from intended interventions (Duncan et al. 2011). Even the study conducted by Duncan et al. presented some concerns, particularly regarding the outcome measurements’ evaluators, who were not blinded, and the randomization process, which was not clear (Duncan et al. 2011). Considering the quasi-experimental study performed by Friel et al., we assessed a serious risk of bias mainly due to confounding and missing data bias (Friel et al. 1999). Finally, the observational study by Kipping et al. was assessed with intermediate quality, mainly due to gaps both in statistical analysis and in data description (Kipping et al. 2012).
Data extraction
The geographic origins of the studies were: five out of eight from the UK (Fairclough et al. 2013; Kipping et al. 2014, 2012; Anderson et al. 2016; Lloyd et al. 2018), two from New Zealand (Duncan et al. 2011, 2019) and one from Ireland (Friel et al. 1999) (Table 3).
Amongst the selected ones, six out of eight studies were classified as RCTs (Fairclough et al. 2013; Kipping et al. 2014; Anderson et al. 2016; Lloyd et al. 2018; Duncan et al. 2011, 2019), one as qualitative study (Kipping et al. 2012), and one as quasi-experimental study (Friel et al. 1999); the oldest one was published in 1999, while most of them in the second decade of the 2000s.
The sample size varied from 32 (Kipping et al. 2012) to 2221 (Kipping et al. 2014; Anderson et al. 2016). While in our inclusion the age criteria were 6–18, the age range in the selected articles was between 7 and 11 years old.
Data regarding the intervention characteristics were extracted adopting the “F.I.T.T.” classification (Frequency, Intensity, Time, Type) mainly used in exercise prescription (Burnet et al. 2019). The “Type” of intervention in all the included studies was school-based healthy lifestyle intervention involving homework and challenges. Homework and challenges were a curriculum-based schedule, complemented by an in-class teaching resource, designed to promote physical activity and healthy eating. Education lessons are delivered by the class teacher then short homework tasks are given at the end of each session related to a specific school challenge.
The “Frequency” and “Time” of the intervention varied from 3–5 times per week for 6–10 weeks of intervention (Duncan et al. 2011, 2019; Friel et al. 1999) to 16 lessons for 6–7 months (Fairclough et al. 2013; Kipping et al. 2014, 2012). The study by Lloyd et al. structured the intervention for an entire school year, but the frequency was not reported (Lloyd et al. 2018). Only four studies described the “Intensity” of the intervention, which varied between 20/30 min per lesson (Friel et al. 1999) and 1/1.5 hours (Duncan et al. 2011, 2019). Many studies analysed multiple outcomes and were thus included in several of the following three primary outcomes:
-
1.
Nutrition-related behaviors: eight studies (100%)
-
2.
Physical activity and sedentary-related behaviours: six studies (75%)
-
3.
Anthropometric outcomes: five studies (62.5%).
Nutrition-related behavior
Overall, eight studies analysed nutrition-related behaviour outcomes. The tools used to assess these outcomes were mainly based on food diaries (Duncan et al. 2011; Friel et al. 1999) and/or self-reported or food-pairing questionnaires (Fairclough et al. 2013; Kipping et al. 2014, 2012; Anderson et al. 2016; Lloyd et al. 2018; Duncan et al. 2019; Friel et al. 1999). In the study by Friel et al., the nutrition-related behaviour was analysed using both a food-pairing questionnaire and a food diary (Friel et al. 1999). The food-pairing questionnaire comprised three sections: knowledge, preference, and behaviour (Friel et al. 1999). The analysis of the effects of the intervention resulted in a statistically significant improvement in the post-intervention questionnaire score in the areas of behaviour and preference, while no significant changes were found in the control group. With regard to post-intervention diaries, beneficial patterns compared with controls were retained in reported consumption of dairy products and cereals, and improved intake of fruit, vegetables, and salty snacks.
Both Fairclough et al. and Lloyd et al. used food intake questionnaires (Fairclough et al. 2013; Lloyd et al. 2018). Fairclough et al. found no significant intervention effects in the areas of fruit and vegetable intake and breakfast consumption (Fairclough et al. 2013). According to Fairclough et al., a healthy diet includes breakfast consumption and at least five portions of a variety of fruits and vegetable per day. Lloyd instead reported a significant decrease in the consumption of unhealthy foods and unhealthy snacks (defined as energy-dense snacks), both weekly and weekday in the intervention group when compared to the control group (Lloyd et al. 2018). In the study by Anderson et al., when analysing the difference among the self-reported food habits, the statistically significant result was the lower consumption of high-fat foods and high-energy drinks in the intervention group compared to the control group (Anderson et al. 2016).
Kipping et al. reported a significant post-intervention reduction in self-reported snacks and high-energy drink consumption (measured with a validated questionnaire) in the intervention group compared to the control group (Kipping et al. 2014).
In the study by Duncan et al. in 2011, evaluating the food diary in the intervention group, a significant decrease was observed in the overall consumption of unhealthy food (P = 0.001) and drink (P = 0.010), while significant increases at follow-up were observed for weekend vegetable consumption (P < 0.001) (Duncan et al. 2011).
Duncan et al. defined unhealthy foods and drinks that are energy-dense and nutrient-poor, such as confectionery and chocolate, deep-fried food, full-sugar soft drinks, and high-fat pastry products. Between groups, statistically significant differences were found in unhealthy drink consumption at baseline (P = 0.037). At the multiple analysis, significant effects were detected for vegetable consumption on weekends (an increase of 0.83 servings.day-1, P = 0.007) and for unhealthy food consumption (decrease of 0.56 servings.day-1 on weekends, P = 0.027, and of 0.48 servings.day-1 overall, P = 0.042).
In the study by Duncan et al. (Duncan et al. 2019), dietary behaviours were estimated using items extracted from the Children’s Dietary Questionnaire (CDQ) (Magarey et al. 2009). The only significant effect was observed for fruit consumption immediately post-intervention (P = 0.036) — although the effect was limited — and 6 months post-intervention; the difference between the intervention group and the control group did not reach statistical significance.
In the 2012 study by Kipping et al., according to the results of focus groups with children, the intervention was shown to be effective in changing nutrition habits, especially in increasing vegetable and fruit consumption, decreasing sugar consumption, and moderating food intake (Kipping et al. 2012). In addition, consistent with the results of the questionnaire administered to parents, the intervention was established to improve children’s awareness about healthy nutrition, although nutrition habits changed to a small extent.
Anthropometric outcomes
Overall, the anthropometric outcomes that were analysed are: body mass index (BMI) z-score (Fairclough et al. 2013; Kipping et al. 2014; Anderson et al. 2016; Duncan et al. 2019) and BMI SDS (Lloyd et al. 2018), waist circumference (WC) (Fairclough et al. 2013; Kipping et al. 2014; Anderson et al. 2016; Lloyd et al. 2018) in most cases, and general overweight/obesity and central overweight/obesity (Anderson et al. 2016; Lloyd et al. 2018), waist-to-height ratio (WtHR) and percentage of body fat (Lloyd et al. 2018) in few cases.
BMI was assessed in all these studies. A significant difference between baseline and follow-up was found in Fairclough et al. after 30 weeks of intervention (P = 0.04) (Fairclough et al. 2013), and in Duncan et al. 6 months post-intervention (Duncan et al. 2019) (P = 0.02), while no significant differences were proven in the studies by Anderson et al., Kipping et al. in 2014, and Lloyd et al. (Anderson et al. 2016; Kipping et al. 2014; Lloyd et al. 2018).
With regard to WC, a statistically significant difference was shown in Fairclough et al. (P < 0.001) in the post-intervention, but this result was not confirmed at follow-up after 30 weeks (Fairclough et al. 2013). The study by Kipping et al. 2014 obtained the same positive results (P = 0.03). The studies by Anderson et al. and Lloyd et al. reported no statistically significant results (Anderson et al. 2016; Lloyd et al. 2018).
General overweight/obesity and central overweight/obesity, as binary outcomes, were assessed, and no significant differences were found between groups in Anderson et al. 2016 and Kipping et al. 2014 .
WtHR was studied only by Duncan et al. (2019) but no significant differences were observed before and after the intervention.
Eventually, the percentage of body fat was investigated by Lloyd et al. both after 18 and 24 months (6 and 12 months after the intervention), and no significant differences were reported (Lloyd et al. 2018).
Physical activity and sedentary-related behaviors
A total of six studies analysed PA and sedentary-related behaviours as outcomes (Fairclough et al. 2013; Kipping et al. 2014; Anderson et al. 2016; Lloyd et al. 2018; Duncan et al. 2011, 2019). PA assessment was performed using different objective tools: accelerometers (Fairclough et al. 2013; Kipping et al. 2014; Anderson et al. 2016; Lloyd et al. 2018) and pedometers (Duncan et al. 2011, 2019). Both studies performed by Duncan et al. found significant intervention effects in the total step count during weekdays and weekends (Duncan et al. 2011, 2019).
With regard to the effects of accelerometry-based studies, in terms of MVPA, light physical activity (LPA), moderate physical activity (MPA), and vigorous physical activity (VPA), only the study by Fairclough et al. reported a significant improvement in LPA, using a multilevel analysis of the effectiveness of the intervention between baseline and follow-up (B: − 0.24c; P < 0.04) (Fairclough et al. 2013). The other three studies that used accelerometers reported no statistically significant results (Kipping et al. 2014; Anderson et al. 2016; Lloyd et al. 2018).
With regard to sedentary-related behaviours, four studies (Fairclough et al. 2013; Kipping et al. 2014; Anderson et al. 2016; Lloyd et al. 2018) used accelerometers to calculate time spent in sedentary activity. No statistically significant differences between groups were shown in the time spent in sedentary behaviour after the intervention.
Screen time and television-related sedentary behaviours were analysed using different questionnaires in four studies (Fairclough et al. 2013; Kipping et al. 2014; Duncan et al. 2011, 2019). Both the studies by Duncan et al. (Duncan et al. 2011, 2019) used an “ad hoc questionnaire” reporting (Robinson 1999) no differences between groups after the intervention.
A self-reported validated questionnaire about the “mean time spent screen viewing on a typical weekday and weekend day” was used by the studies by Anderson et al. and Kipping et al. (Kipping et al. 2014; Anderson et al. 2016; Kipping et al. 2012).
The study by Kipping et al. 2014 reported a statistically significant beneficial effect on self-reported screen viewing on Saturdays (P < 0.01) (Kipping et al. 2014). The same improvement trend is highlighted n the study by Anderson et al. (P < 0.06) (Anderson et al. 2016).
Meta-analysis results
Due to the heterogeneity in the outcomes measurements, three studies were quantitatively compared in a meta-analysis regarding anthropometric outcomes (Kipping et al. 2014; Anderson et al. 2016; Lloyd et al. 2018). Two different meta-analyses were conducted focusing on BMI (z-score) and WC, using pre–post change results.
With regard to BMI, a non-statistically significant trend between EG and CG (P = 0.29, 95% C.I. − 0.01, 0.05, random model I2 = 100%) (Fig. 2) was shown by the meta-analysis. However, an average, but not statistically significant, reduction in EG compared with CG from baseline to follow-up (P = 0.14, 95% C .I. −03.66, 0.51, random model I2 = 38%) was evidenced by the WC analysis.
While the quality of RCT studies was deemed good, meta-analysis results should be approached with caution due to the limited number of included studies (Fig. 2).
Discussion
The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness over time of school-based interventions that included extracurricular activities and homework aimed at the promotion of healthy lifestyles. Most of the excluded studies were focused on PA intervention not school-based or multiple interventions with PA, PE, and organised sports activities (Ludyga et al. 2019; Muzaffar et al. 2019; Moore et al. 2010). Although the included age criteria were 6–18 years, the age range of the studies analysed in this systematic review was limited (7–11 years), given that studies with secondary school students (12–18) were not found. This result might underline the necessity of the development of school-based health promotion interventions in secondary school settings (Frech 2012). The age of adolescence is indeed a key period to develop and stabilise healthy behaviours, which risk declining drastically during the transition to young adulthood if no proper social support is given (Bonell et al. 2019). In connection with this, a recent longitudinal study evaluating the effects of school environments on student risk behaviours suggests that there is a need for school-based intervention promoting health among secondary school children (Althubaiti et al. 2016). Due to our strict inclusion criteria, we finally included only eight studies in our review.
The school-based interventions with healthy homework and extracurricular activities investigated in the included studies were structured in a very similar way in terms of content. The main intervention differences between the eight studies were observed in the total duration of the intervention and the weekly frequency.
Nutritional and anthropometric outcomes and assessment tools
All eight included studies analysed nutrition-related outcomes.
With the exception of Fairclough et al., who reported no significant differences in food intake (Fairclough et al. 2013) all other studies found significant variations in nutritional outcomes, although with different assessment tools (Kipping et al. 2014, 2012; Anderson et al. 2016; Lloyd et al. 2018; Duncan et al. 2011, 2019; Friel et al. 1999). Overall, we can establish that the use of healthy tasks, challenges, and educational lessons focusing on healthy lifestyles could have a positive impact on children’s eating habits. These positive results were evident both after a few weeks of intervention (short studies) and after several months of intervention (long studies).
For the studies using questionnaires to assess an outcome, it is important to consider that all questionnaires used differ from each other in various ways and therefore it is difficult to compare the studies.
Furthermore, a tool such as a questionnaire—which is filled out by the participants themselves—is less objective than others used to measure the other outcomes in these studies (BMI, PA, etc.). In particular, it has to be considered that these questionnaires were answered after following specific classes where children were taught how to follow a healthy diet. This could have led to a potential error, also known as “social desirability bias”. Unfortunately, the authors do not describe in detail the administered questionnaires. This is why it was not possible to assess them for any self-reported bias (Neil-Sztramko et al. 2021).
With regard to anthropometric outcomes, the results are still unclear. The intervention appears to have limited effects both for BMI and WC measures in the short term, since they are not maintained over a longer period. The systematic review by Wang et al. confirmed that multi-setting and multi-component interventions, especially focused on diet, are more beneficial and have more favourable impacts on adiposity-related outcomes when compared with single-setting interventions (Wang et al. 2015). The meta-analysis highlights a positive trend in terms of the effect of the intervention on the WC, albeit not significant, while there is no clear trend withe regard to BMI in the included studies. However, it is imperative to be cautious when interpreting the outcomes of the meta-analysis, given the limited number of studies and their inherent heterogeneity.
PA and sedentary-behaviors outcomes
With regard to PA outcomes, all the studies used objective and valid tools. Both the studies by Duncan et al. used pedometers and found an increase in the number of steps (Duncan et al. 2011, 2019). Using accelerometers instead, only Fairclough et al. found an improvement in the LPA parameter (Fairclough et al. 2013). The other studies reported no effect on PA. These results underline that probably school-based interventions with extracurricular activity, independent of intensity and duration, do not have great effects on improving MVPA. An effect is evident only in low and light intense activity registered in the number of steps. Sedentary behaviours were assessed using both objective tools and questionnaires (screen-time-related behaviour). No effects were found when sedentary times were calculated with ActiGraph accelerometers. In terms of screen time, the studies by Duncan et al. (Duncan et al. 2011, 2019) reported no differences, while Anderson et al. and Kipping et al. (Anderson et al. 2016: Kipping et al. 2014) found a reduction in the time spent with devices at the weekend.
These findings were in line with a recent review protocol suggesting that school-based PA interventions probably have little to no impact on either time spent in MVPA or on time spent in sedentary behaviour objectively measured (Doustmohammadian et al. 2020). However, the effect on steps counts and LPA in our review suggests that school-based intervention with extracurricular homework and challenges, focused on PA to be practised outside the school environment, could help to increase low-intensive physical activity such as walking over the short to medium term (Duncan et al. 2011, 2019; Fairclough et al. 2013).
Students’ and teachers’ feedback
No studies included in this review reported negative feedback from teachers and pupils involved in the intervention, even the study by Kipping et al. in 2012 measured children’s satisfaction and reported generally positive feedback (Kipping et al. 2012). Children enjoyed doing homework, especially the activities carried out with their parents. In conclusion, the use of this school-based intervention including healthy homework, challenges, and educational lessons focusing on healthy lifestyles could have a positive impact on children’s eating habits, both after a few weeks of intervention or after several months, and could be a good strategy for enhancing LPA and step counts. An imperative exists for a more rigorous investigation of this type of intervention. There is a need for better investigation of this type of intervention, which might facilitate lifestyle modifications involving both children and their families which stimulate a change in lifestyle. Such an approach holds significant promise as a solution, and could represent an integrative strategy targeting the prevention of obesity and overweight.
Study limitations
The present systematic review shows some limitations due to the study design of included studies. Generally, the quality of the included studies is good; the majority of the RCTs are well conducted, with a low risk of bias. However, both studies performed by Duncan et al. produced some concerns about the randomization process and the blindness of evaluators (Duncan et al. 2011, 2019). The only quasi-experimental study presents a serious risk of bias due to confounding and missing data (Friel et al. 1999). Finally, considerable heterogeneity, which limits our review, exists in the type of intervention, outcomes assessed, and statistical analysis of the results. Taking into account all of these issues, only three studies were eligible to be included in meta-analyses, implying the need for cautious interpretation.
Conclusions
Recently, a growing interest has been shown in investigating and evaluating school-based interventions that promote healthy lifestyles in various age groups of young people (de Medeiros et al. 2019; Nury et al. 2021; Masini et al. 2020a, b). We found many studies focused on health promotion programs, but most school-based interventions promoting healthy lifestyles in youth focused solely on the school setting (Dallolio et al. 2016; Calella et al. 2020; Grao-Cruces et al. 2020; Masini et al. 2020a, b). Nowadays, only school-based PA interventions, especially using active breaks or physical active lessons, have been extensively studied and have proven effects on several health outcomes (Frech 2012; Daly-Smith et al. 2018; Norris et al. 2020; Infantes-Paniagua et al. 2021). Some evidence suggests that incorporating PA throughout the school day (e.g., PA lessons, PA breaks) may have the strongest impact on time spent in MVPA (Doustmohammadian 2020).
This review provides evidence that school-based interventions including homework can improve nutritional behaviour, step counts, and LPA. Despite some statistically significant results, the effects on anthropometric outcomes are still unclear. Further studies are needed to demonstrate that these interventions can represent a strategy for obesity prevention.
Data availability
Available from the corresponding author upon request.
Code availability
Not applicable.
References
Althubaiti A (2016) Information bias in health research: definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods. J Multidiscip Healthc 9:211–217. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S104807
Andela S, Burrows TL, Baur LA et al (2019) Efficacy of very low-energy diet programs for weight loss: a systematic review with meta-analysis of intervention studies in children and adolescents with obesity. Obes Rev 20(6):871–882. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12830
Anderson EL, Howe LD, Kipping RR et al (2016) Long-term effects of the Active for Life Year 5 (AFLY5) school-based cluster-randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 6(11):e010957. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010957
Aubert S, Brazo-Sayavera J, González SA et al (2021) Global prevalence of physical activity for children and adolescents; inconsistencies, research gaps, and recommendations: a narrative review. Int J Behaviour Nutri Phys Activ 18:81. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-021-01155-2
Bonell C, Beaumont E, Dodd M et al (2019) Effects of school environments on student risk-behaviours: evidence from a longitudinal study of secondary schools in England. J Epidemiol Community Health 73(6):502–508. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2018-211866
Bull FC, Al-Ansari SS, Biddle S et al (2020) World Health Organization 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Br J Sports Med 54(24):1451–1462. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2020-102955
Burnet K, Kelsch E, Zieff G et al (2019) How fitting is F.I.T.T.?: a perspective on a transition from the sole use of frequency, intensity, time, and type in exercise prescription. Physiol Behav 199:33–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2018.11.007
Brandstetter S, Klenk J, Berg S et al (2012) Overweight prevention implemented by primary school teachers: a randomised controlled trial. Obes Facts 5(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1159/000336255
Brown T, Moore TH, Hooper L, Gao Y, Zayegh A, Ijaz S, Elwenspoek M, Foxen SC, Magee L, O’Malley C, Waters E, Summerbell CD (2019) Interventions for preventing obesity in children. Cochrane Database System Rev 7(7):CD001871. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001871.pub4
Calella P, Mancusi C, Pecoraro P, Sensi S, Sorrentino C, Imoletti M, Franzese A, Gallè F, Liguori G, Valerio G (2020) Classroom active breaks: a feasibility study in Southern Italy. Health Promot Int 35(2):373–380. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daz033
Carson V, Hunter S, Kuzik N, Gray CE, Poitras VJ, Chaput JP, Saunders TJ, Katzmarzyk PT, Okely AD, Connor Gorber S, Kho ME, Sampson M, Lee H, Tremblay MS (2016) Systematic review of sedentary behaviour and health indicators in school-aged children and youth: an update. Appl Phys Nutri Metab 41(6 Suppl 3):S240–S265. https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2015-0630
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2013) Comprehensive school physical activity programs: a guide for school. US Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta GA, USA
Chaput JP, Gray CE, Poitras VJ, Carson V, Gruber, Olds T, Weiss SK, Connor Gorber S, Kho ME, Sampson M, Belanger K, Eryuzlu S, Callender L, Tremblay MS (2016) Systematic review of the relationships between sleep duration and health indicators in school-aged children and youth. Appl Phys Nutri Metab 41(6 Suppl 3):S266–S282. https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2015-0627
Colella D, Monacis D, D’Arando C (2020) Motor performances in relation to perceived physical self-efficacy, enjoyment and BMI in primary school children. Eur J Phys Educ Sport Scie 6(3):3706998. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3706998
Cuschieri S (2019) The STROBE guidelines. Saudi J Anaesth 13(Suppl 1):S31–S34. https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.SJA_543_18
Dallolio L, Ceciliani A, Sanna T et al (2016) Proposal for an enhanced physical education program in the primary school: evaluation of feasibility and effectiveness in improving physical skills and fitness. J Phys Act Health 13(10):1025–1034. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2015-0694
Daly-Smith AJ, Zwolinsky S, McKenna J, Tomporowski PD, Defeyter MA, Manley A (2018) Systematic review of acute physically active learning and classroom movement breaks on children’s physical activity, cognition, academic performance and classroom behaviour: understanding critical design features. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med 4(1):e000341. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2018-000341
de Medeiros G, de Azevedo K, Garcia DÁ et al (2019) Protocol for systematic reviews of school-based food and nutrition education intervention for adolescent health promotion: evidence mapping and syntheses. Medicine 98(35):e16977. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000016977
DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7(3):177–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2
Dobbins M, Husson H, DeCorby K, LaRocca RL (2013) School-based physical activity programs for promoting physical activity and fitness in children and adolescents aged 6 to 18. Cochrane Database System Rev 2013(2):CD007651. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2
Doustmohammadian A, Omidvar N, Shakibazadeh E (2020) School-based interventions for promoting food and nutrition literacy (FNLIT) in elementary school children: a systematic review protocol. Syst Rev 9(1):87. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01339-0
Duncan S, McPhee JC, Schluter PJ et al (2011) Efficacy of a compulsory homework programme for increasing physical activity and healthy eating in children: the healthy homework pilot study. Int J Behaviour Nutri Phys Activ 8:127. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-8-127
Duncan S, Stewart T, McPhee J et al (2019) Efficacy of a compulsory homework programme for increasing physical activity and improving nutrition in children: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Int J Behavior Nutri Phys Activ 16:80. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-019-0840-3
Ekelund U, Luan J, Sherar LB, Esliger DW, Griew P, Cooper A, International Children’s Accelerometry Database (ICAD) Collaborators (2012) Moderate to vigorous physical activity and sedentary time and cardiometabolic risk factors in children and adolescents. JAMA 307(7):704–712. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.156
Fairclough SJ, Hackett AF, Davies IG, Gobbi R, Mackintosh KA, Warburton GL, Stratton G, van Sluijs EM, Boddy LM (2013) Promoting healthy weight in primary school children through physical activity and nutrition education: a pragmatic evaluation of the CHANGE! randomised intervention study. BMC Public Health 13:626. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-626
FAO and WHO (2019) Sustainable healthy diets – guiding principles. FAO and WHO, Rome and Geneva. https://www.fao.org/3/ca6640en/ca6640en.pdf
Frech A (2012) Healthy behavior trajectories between adolescence and young adulthood. Adv Life Course Res 17(2):59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2012.01.003
Friel S, Kelleher C, Campbell P, Nolan G (1999) Evaluation of the Nutrition Education at Primary School (NEAPS) programme. Public Health Nutr 2(4):549–555. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1368980099000737
Grao-Cruces A, Sánchez-Oliva D, Padilla-Moledo C et al (2020) Changes in the school and non-school sedentary time in youth: the UP&DOWN longitudinal study. J Sports Sci 38(7):780–786. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2020.1734310
Greenhalgh T, Peacock R (2005) Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ 331(7524):1064–1065. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68
Haines J, Haycraft E, Lytle L et al (2019) Nurturing children’s healthy eating: position statement. Appetite 137:124–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.02.007
Higgins JGS (2008) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester UK
Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ et al (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327(7414):557–560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
Infantes-Paniagua Á, Silva A, Ramirez-Campillo R et al (2021) Active school breaks and students’ attention: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Brain Sci 11(6):675. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11060675
Janssen I, Leblanc AG (2010) Systematic review of the health benefits of physical activity and fitness in school-aged children and youth. Int J Behaviour Nutri Phys Activ 7:40. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-7-40
Katzmarzyk PT, Powell KE, Jakicic JM et al (2019) Sedentary behavior and Health: update from the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee. Med Sci Sports Exerc 51(6):1227–1241. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000001935
Kipping RR, Jago R, Lawlor DA (2012) Developing parent involvement in a school-based child obesity prevention intervention: a qualitative study and process evaluation. J Public Health 34(2):236–244. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdr076
Kipping RR, Howe LD, Jago R et al (2014) Effect of intervention aimed at increasing physical activity, reducing sedentary behaviour, and increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in children: active for life year 5 (AFLY5) school based cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ 348:g3256. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g3256
Leme A, Hou S, Fisberg RM et al (2021) Adherence food-based dietary guidelines: a systemic review of high-income and low- and middle-income countries. Nutrients 13(3):1038. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13031038
Lewien C, Genuneit J, Meigen C et al (2021) Sleep-related difficulties in healthy children and adolescents. BMC Pediatr 21(1):82. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-021-02529-y
Lloyd J, Creanor S, Logan S et al (2018) Effectiveness of the Healthy Lifestyles Programme (HeLP) to prevent obesity in UK primary-school children: a cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet Child Adolescent Health 2(1):35–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(17)30151-7
Ludyga S, Koutsandréou F, Reuter EM et al (2019) A randomized controlled trial on the effects of aerobic and coordinative training on neural correlates of inhibitory control in children. J Clin Med 8(2):184. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8020184
Magarey A, Golley R, Spurrier N et al (2009) Reliability and validity of the children’s dietary questionnaire; a new tool to measure children’s dietary patterns. Int J Pediatric Obes 4(4):257–265. https://doi.org/10.3109/17477160902846161
Masini A, Marini S, Gori D et al (2020a) Evaluation of school-based interventions of active breaks in primary schools: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sci Med Sport 23(4):377–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2019.10.008
Masini A, Marini S, Leoni E et al (2020b) Active breaks: a pilot and feasibility study to evaluate the effectiveness of physical activity levels in a school based intervention in an Italian primary school. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17(12):4351. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17124351
Matricciani L, Paquet C, Galland B et al (2019) Children’s sleep and health: a meta-review. Sleep Med Rev 46:136–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2019.04.011
Matusitz J, McCormick J (2012) Sedentarism: the effects of internet use on human obesity in the United States. Social Work in Public Health 27(3):250–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/19371918.2011.542998
Miller MA, Kruisbrink M, Wallace J et al (2018) Sleep duration and incidence of obesity in infants, children, and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Sleep 41(4):zsy018. https://doi.org/10.1093/sleep/zsy018
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:b2535–b2535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535
Moore JB, Schneider L, Lazorick S et al (2010) Rationale and development of the move more North Carolina: recommended standards for after-school physical activity. J Public Health Manag Pract: JPHMP 16(4):359–366. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0b013e3181ca2634
Muzaffar H, Nikolaus CJ, Ogolsky BG et al (2019) Promoting cooking, nutrition, and physical activity in afterschool settings. Am J Health Behav 43(6):1050–1063. https://doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.43.6.4
Neil-Sztramko SE, Caldwell H, Dobbins M (2021) School-based physical activity programs for promoting physical activity and fitness in children and adolescents aged 6 to 18. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9(9):CD007651. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007651.pub2
Ness AR, Leary SD, Mattocks C, Blair SN, Reilly JJ, Wells J, Ingle S, Tilling K, Smith GD, Riddoch C (2007) Objectively measured physical activity and fat mass in a large cohort of children. PLoS Med 4(3):e97. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040097
Norris E, van Steen T, Direito A, Stamatakis E (2020) Physically active lessons in schools and their impact on physical activity, educational, health and cognition outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med 54(14):826–838. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2018-100502
Nury E, Morze J, Grummich K et al (2021) Effects of nutrition intervention strategies in the primary prevention of overweight and obesity in school settings: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Syst Rev 10(1):122. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01661-1
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Pascoe M, Bailey AP, Craike M et al (2020) Physical activity and exercise in youth mental health promotion: a scoping review. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med 6(1):e000677. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2019-000677
Poitras VJ, Gray CE, Borghese MM et al (2016) Systematic review of the relationships between objectively measured physical activity and health indicators in school-aged children and youth. Appl Physiol Nutri Metab 41(6 Suppl 3):S197–S239. https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2015-0663
Pulimeno M, Piscitelli P, Colazzo S et al (2020) School as ideal setting to promote health and wellbeing among young people. Health Prom Perspect 10(4):316–324. https://doi.org/10.34172/hpp.2020.50
Robinson TN (1999) Reducing children’s television viewing to prevent obesity: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 282(16):1561–1567. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.282.16.1561
Rodriguez-Ayllon M, Cadenas-Sánchez C, Estévez-López F et al (2019) Role of physical activity and sedentary behavior in the mental health of preschoolers, children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med 49(9):1383–1410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-019-01099-5
Shochat T, Cohen-Zion M, Tzischinsky O (2014) Functional consequences of inadequate sleep in adolescents: a systematic review. Sleep Med Rev 18(1):75–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2013.03.005
Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC et al (2016) ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 355:i4919. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919
Sterne J, Savović J, Page MJ et al (2019) RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 366:l4898. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898
Story M, Nanney MS, Schwartz MB (2009) Schools and obesity prevention: creating school environments and policies to promote healthy eating and physical activity. Milbank Q 87(1):71–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00548.x
Vander Wyst KB, Whisner CM, Reifsnider E, Petrov ME (2019) The combined impact of sleep and diet on adiposity in infants, toddlers, and young children: a systematic review. J Dev Behavior Pediatr 40(3):224–236. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0000000000000636
Verjans-Janssen S, van de Kolk I, Van Kann D, Kremers S, Gerards S (2018) Effectiveness of school-based physical activity and nutrition interventions with direct parental involvement on children’s BMI and energy balance-related behaviors — a systematic review. Plos One 13(9):e0204560. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204560
Wang Y, Cai L, Wu Y, Wilson RF, Weston C, Fawole O, Bleich SN, Cheskin LJ, Showell NN, Lau BD, Chiu DT, Zhang A, Segal J (2015) What childhood obesity prevention programmes work? a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev 16(7):547–565. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12277
Waters E, de Silva-Sanigorski A, Hall BJ et al (2011) Interventions for preventing obesity in children. Cochrane Database System Rev 2011(12):CD001871. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001871.pub3
Wolfenden L, McCrabb S, Barnes C, O’Brien KM, Ng KW, Nathan NK, Sutherland R, Hodder RK, Tzelepis F, Nolan E, Williams CM, Yoong SL (2022) Strategies for enhancing the implementation of school-based policies or practices targeting diet, physical activity, obesity, tobacco or alcohol use. Cochrane Database System Rev 2022(8):CD011677. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011677.pub3
World Health Organization (2014) Food and nutrition. WHO, Geneva
Funding
Open access funding provided by Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. External financial support was received by the European Union’s Erasmus Plus Sport program under grant agreement No. 2021–2023. However, the funding sources had no role in the design of this study nor its execution, analyses, interpretation of the data, or decision to submit results.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Alice Masini, Andrea Ceciliani, Sofia Marini, and Laura Dallolio designed the systematic review. Alice Masini and Sofia Marini designed the methodology and coordinated the activity planning.
Alice Masini, Sofia Marini, Alessandra Anastasia, Aurelia Salussolia, Giorgia Soldà, Giorgia Zanutto, Andrea Ceciliani, and Laura Dallolio independently reviewed abstracts and papers, and disagreements were resolved by consensus with Alice Masini and Sofia Marini.
Alessandra Anastasia, Aurelia Salussolia, Giorgia Soldà, Giorgia Zanutto, and Laura Dallolio performed the qualitative assessment, and disagreements were resolved by Alice Masini and Sofia Marini. Alice Masini, Alessandra Anastasia, Aurelia Salussolia, Giorgia Soldà, Giorgia Zanutto, and Sofia Marini acquired, analysed, and interpreted the data. Alice Masini performed the statistical analysis. Laura Dallolio checked data extractions. Alice Masini drafted the manuscript, which was critically revised for important intellectual content by all authors. Alessandra Anastasia, Aurelia Salussolia, Giorgia Soldà, and Giorgia Zanutto wrote sections of the manuscript. Alberto Grao-Cruces and David Sanchez-Oliva revised the manuscript and.
contributed with intellectual ideas. Andrea Ceciliani and Laura Dallolio supervised the study. Stephan Riegger and Raffaela Mulato edited the manuscript’s language.
All authors have read and approved the final manuscript, including figures and tables.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Ethical statement
This systematic review adheres to the highest ethical standards. The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration no. CRD42021281011). Informed consent was not required as the review involved secondary data analysis. The search and selection process followed predefined criteria to minimize bias. Data extraction and synthesis were conducted rigorously, with transparency regarding potential conflicts of interest among authors. Reporting complies with PRISMA reporting guidelines.
Ethics approval
Not applicable.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent to publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Sofia Marini and Laura Dallolio, Both authors jointly directed this research.
Please note that the word 'homework' when used in this paper refers to the assignment of PA-related tasks for school pupils to perform at home, not to academic activity
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Masini, A., Salussolia, A., Anastasia, A. et al. Evaluation of school-based interventions including homework to promote healthy lifestyles: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Public Health (Berl.) (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-024-02239-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-024-02239-6