Background: UK and global policies recommend whole-school approaches to improve childrens’ inadequate physical activity (PA) levels. Yet, recent meta-analyses establish current interventions as ineffective due to suboptimal implementation rates and poor sustainability. To create effective interventions, which recognise schools as complex adaptive sub-systems, multi-stakeholder input is necessary. Further, to ensure ‘systems’ change, a framework is required that identifies all components of a whole-school PA approach. The study’s aim was to co-develop a whole-school PA framework using the double diamond design approach (DDDA).Methodology: Fifty stakeholders engaged in a six-phase DDDA workshop undertaking tasks within same stakeholder (n= 9; UK researchers, public health specialists, active schools coordinators, headteachers, teachers, active partner schools specialists, national organisations, Sport England local delivery pilot representatives and international researchers) and mixed (n= 6) stakeholder groupings. Six draft frameworks were created before stakeholders voted for one ‘initial’ framework. Next, stakeholders reviewed the ‘initial’ framework, proposing modifications. Following the workshop, stakeholders voted on eight modifications using an online questionnaire.Results: Following voting, the Creating Active Schools Framework (CAS) was designed. At the centre, ethos and practice drive school policy and vision, creating the physical and social environments in which five key stakeholder groups operate to deliver PA through seven opportunities both within and beyond school. At the top of the model, initial and in-service teacher training foster teachers’ capability, opportunity and motivation (COM-B) to deliver whole-school PA. National policy and organisations drive top-down initiatives that support or hinder whole-school PA.Summary: To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first time practitioners, policymakers and researchers have co-designed a whole-school PA framework from initial conception. The novelty of CAS resides in identifying the multitude of interconnecting components of a whole-school adaptive sub-system; exposing the complexity required to create systems change. The framework can be used to shape future policy, research and practice to embed sustainable PA interventions within schools. To enact such change, CAS presents a potential paradigm shift, providing a map and method to guide future co-production by multiple experts of PA initiatives ‘with’ schools, while abandoning outdated traditional approaches of implementing interventions ‘on’ schools.

Background: The International Society for Physical Activity and Health (ISPAH) is a leading global organization working to advance research, policy, and practice to promote physical activity. Given the expanding evidence base on interventions to promote physical activity, it was timely to review and update a major ISPAH advocacy document—Investments that Work for Physical Activity (2011). Methods: Eight investment areas were agreed upon through consensus. Literature reviews were conducted to identify key evidence relevant to policymakers in each sector or setting. Results: The 8 investment areas were as follows: whole-of-school programs; active transport; active urban design; health care; public education; sport and recreation; workplaces; and community-wide programs. Evidence suggests that the largest population health benefit will be achieved by combining these investments and implementing a systems-based approach. Conclusions: Establishing consensus on ‘what works’ to change physical activity behavior is a cornerstone of successful advocacy, as is having appropriate resources to communicate key messages to a wide range of stakeholders. ISPAH has created a range of resources related to the new investments described in this paper. These resources are available in the ‘advocacy toolkit’ on the ISPAH website (www.ispah.org/resources).

Objective: To examine the effectiveness of physical activity interventions delivered or prompted by primary care health professionals for increasing moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA) in adult patients. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Data sources: Databases (Medline and Medline in progress, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Sports Medicine and Education Index, ASSIA, PEDro, Bibliomap, Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index), trial registries (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, TRoPHI), and grey literature (OpenGrey) sources were searched (from inception to September 2020). Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Randomised controlled trials of aerobic based physical activity interventions delivered or prompted by health professionals in primary care with a usual care control group or another control group that did not involve physical activity. Study selection and analysis: Two independent reviewers screened the search results, extracted data from eligible trials and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (version 2). Inverse variance meta-analyses using random effects models examined the primary outcome of difference between the groups in MVPA (min/week) from baseline to final follow-up. The odds of meeting the guidelines for MVPA at follow-up were also analysed. Results: 14 566 unique reports were identified and 46 randomised controlled trials with a range of follow-ups (3-60 months) were included in the meta-analysis (n=16 198 participants). Physical activity interventions delivered or prompted by health professionals in primary care increased MVPA by 14 min/week (95% confidence interval 4.2 to 24.6, P=0.006). Heterogeneity was substantial (I ² =91%, P<0.001). Limiting analyses to trials that used a device to measure physical activity showed no significant group difference in MVPA (mean difference 4.1 min/week, 95% confidence interval −1.7 to 9.9, P=0.17; I ² =56%, P=0.008). Trials that used self-report measures showed that intervention participants achieved 24 min/week more MVPA than controls (95% confidence interval 6.3 to 41.8, P=0.008; I ² =72%, P<0.001). Additionally, interventions increased the odds of patients meeting guidelines for MVPA by 33% (95% confidence interval 1.17 to 1.50, P<0.001; I ² =25%, P=0.11) versus controls. 14 of 46 studies were at high risk of bias but sensitivity analyses excluding these studies did not alter the results. Conclusions: Physical activity interventions delivered or prompted by health professionals in primary care appear effective at increasing participation in self-reported MVPA. Such interventions should be considered for routine implementation to increase levels of physical activity and improve health outcomes in the population. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42021209484.

Background: Public health guidance acknowledges the benefits of physical activity of any duration. We have proposed a whole-day approach to promoting physical activity called Snacktivity^™, which encourages frequent 2–5 minute ‘activity snacks’ of moderate-to-vigorous intensity. Methods: Using repeated semi-structured interviews and a think aloud protocol, this study aimed to understand participants’ experiences of integrating Snacktivity^™ into daily life, to provide insights to refine the delivery of Snacktivity^™ interventions. Physically inactive adults recruited via primary care and a community health service engaged with an intervention to encourage Snacktivity^™ over three weeks, which included using a Fitbit and linked mobile phone app (SnackApp). Participants took part in semi-structured interviews on two occasions during the intervention, with a sub-group participating in a think aloud study. Three study data sets were generated and independently explored using inductive thematic analysis, with findings combined into a single set of themes. Results: Eleven adults participated in the interview study who were interviewed twice (total interviews completed n = 21, 1 participant declined the second interview), of whom six completed the think aloud study (total voice recordings n = 103). Three main themes emerged from the combined data; lived experience of participating in Snacktivity^™, motivation for Snacktivity^™ and experiences with the Snacktivity^™ technology. Participants undertook a variety of activity snacks, utilising their environment, which they believed improved their psychological wellbeing. Participants were enthusiastic about Snacktivity^™, with some stating that activity snacks were more accessible than traditional exercise, but perceived they were often prevented from doing so in the presence of others. Participants were mostly enthusiastic about using the Snacktivity^™ technology. Conclusion: Participants were able to incorporate Snacktivity^™ into their lives, particularly at home, and found this approach acceptable. Participants felt they experienced health benefits from Snacktivity^™ although barriers to participation were reported. This study offers insights for translating guidance into practice and supporting people to become more physically active.

There is growing interest in school-based interventions which deliver opportunities for additional physical activity time outside of physical education (PE). A practical and cost-effective approach may be school running programmes. Consequently, many school-based running initiatives are currently being implemented in a grass-roots style movement across the UK. However, research on the implementation of physical activity programmes in schools is notably underdeveloped. Therefore, this qualitative study aimed to better understand the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a running programme, Marathon Kids (MK), within primary schools in England. Two sets of semi-structured interviews were conducted, the first with each of the three core members of staff responsible for MK, and the second with each of the MK school staff Champions from 20 primary schools. Also, nine focus groups were conducted with 55 pupils (6–10 years) from five of the schools; all were analysed using thematic analysis. Three themes were identified surrounding the barriers and facilitators to implementation: features of the programme (e.g. ethos and resources), school climate (e.g. culture; whole school engagement; PE and physical activity policies and goals; and physical environment) and programme implementation decisions (e.g. aspirations and planning and sustainability). Findings suggest that the barriers and facilitators to implementation are wide-ranging and include programme, organisational and system-level factors. Collectively pointing towards the need for a preparation period before implementation to understand schools’ readiness to implement and context-specific factors, both regarding organisational capacity and programme specific capacity.