Outputs and resources

Reports and evidence briefs

• Review of the non-academic (‘grey’) literature (pdf)
• Evidence Brief: Making the ‘CASE’ for Active School Environments (pdf)
• Engaging stakeholders and target groups in prioritising CASE interventions

Peer reviewed publications (open access)

• The school environment and adolescent physical activity and sedentary behaviour: A mixed-studies systematic review (pdf)
• School polices, programmes and facilities, and objectively measured sedentary time, LPA and MVPA: associations in secondary school and over the transition from primaryto secondary school (pdf)
• Engaging stakeholders and target groups in prioritising a public health intervention: the Creating Active School Environments (CASE) online Delphi study (pdf)

---

Key findings

• Across the multiple forms of evidence, consistent support was found for (a) the importance of activity settings within school for physical activity, (b) the creation of a ‘culture’ of physical activity within the school, (c) teaching behaviours that support a positive climate for physical activity promotion, both within PE and beyond (e.g., role modelling, enthusiasm for physical activity and social support for physical activity), and (d) availability of intramural activity opportunities for all students.
• It is critical that those developing and implementing school-based interventions recognise the importance and complexities of the environmental factors that can influence physical activity and sedentary behaviour.
• There are marked differences in school policies, programmes and facilities for physical activity between UK primary and secondary schools. Compared to primary schools, secondary schools typically had a shorter break time, but a more positive physical activity environment. Environmental features are, however, more targeted at the already highly active students.
• Total break duration and extra-curricular physical activity opportunities at lunchtime showed consistent relationships with adolescent time spent sedentary and in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. Modifying these factors, in order to support students in being more active, was also viewed favourably by stakeholders. School-based interventions that combine longer breaks and more opportunities for activity during lunchtime may be a fruitful direction for future interventions.
• Stakeholders (including teachers and students) showed a consistent preference for introducing ‘active lessons’ in secondary schools, an approach only tested in primary schools to date.
• Those looking to promote, deliver, and/or evaluate programmes to reduce sedentary time or increase physical activity should emphasise the potential benefits to mental health and wellbeing in their efforts to engage schools and students.
• Training teachers to deliver active lessons in secondary school is acceptable and feasible, and leads to measurable change in teaching practice. However, lack of preliminary evidence of effectiveness on adolescents’ time spent sitting and levels of activity do not support progression with the current training programme in further research.
• It is feasible to develop and apply a decision model to assess the long-term value-for-money of adolescent activity promotion interventions. Illustrative applications show that complex, resource-intensive interventions may not necessarily be the ones considered the most cost-effective.