David Rowe 1, David McMinn 2, Shemane Murtagh 1, Norah Nelson 1 1 Physical Activity for Health Research Group University of Strathclyde 2 Rowett Institute University of Aberdeen

 Children’s physical activity levels  Potential for active transport  Purpose: To investigate immediate, medium- term, and long-term effects of a school- based intervention on children’s walking to/from school and overall physical activity

 Curricular intervention (6 weeks)  Developed and piloted as part of McKee et al. (2007)  Introductory activities  Write and draw activities, target setting, etc.  Lesson plans  e.g., the local environment, mapping skills, the heart and lungs, safety, etc.  Teachers’ resource handbook  Worksheets, activity cards, homework  Pupil pack  “My travel challenge”, progress chart, fluorescent stickers, etc.

 McKee et al. (2007)  Quasi-experiment, two schools (n = 55)  Distance walked and distance by car, measured via self-report (route mapping)  Stage of change, barriers and motivations  Walking:  Intervention 198  772 m/day; Control 242  285 m/day  Car:  Intervention 2018  933 m/day; Control 933  947m/day

 SE-CAT study added:  Objective measures of physical activity  Larger sample  Stratified sample (high and low SES)  Assess variety of theoretical model parameters (Barriers, Motivations, Self-Efficacy, TPB, Habit)  Follow-up (maintenance) measures (5-mth, 12- mth)  Evaluates seasonal effect  Assesses parent perceptions  Process evaluation  Pilot (McMinn et al., 2012, BMC Public Health)

InterventionComparisonTime Data collection Aug/Sep 2009 Data collection TG Oct/Nov 2009 Mar-May 2010 Jun 2010 Oct/Nov 2010 Jun 2011 McMinn et al. (2012) Preventive Medicine

 Physical activity measures (main behavioral outcome)  Total daily, morning commute, afternoon commute  Route characteristics  Actigraph GT1M, NL-1000, Trackstick (GPS)  Travel diary (home journey)  Mode  Arrival time  Implementation  (teacher checklist)

 Parent and child questionnaires  Socioeconomic (car ownership, income, home ownership, home SIMD, etc.)  Stage of Change  Barriers, facilitators, benefits  Self-efficacy  TPB Attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, intention  Habit Walking Car/bus

 Active commuting/physical activity  Actigraph-determined steps and MVPA  To school (a.m. commute), from school (p.m. commute), and total day

 163 children (P5; 8-9 yr) in 5 schools  Actigraph GT1M accelerometer steps (a.m./p.m. commute and total day), during one school week  Measurement points were baseline (fall), post- intervention (winter), 5 months (spring), and 12 months (fall).  Travelling Green intervention delivered by teachers immediately after baseline in the initial intervention group (I; n = 79), and following 5-month measures in the comparison group (C; n = 84)  Data analysis:  2-way (Group*Time) factorial ANOVAs  Post hoc inspection of mean plots  Cohen’s d effect sizes (0.2=small; 0.5=medium; > 0.80=large) 10

11 Significant Group*Time interaction for a.m. commute steps (p <.05, η 2 =.02) The I and C groups diverged following the I group intervention for 5 months, and converged following the C group intervention d = 0.03 d = 0.25 d = 0.49 d = 0.17

12 Nonsignificant Group*Time interaction for p.m. commute steps (p >.05) Main effects tests indicated significantly higher (p Winter < Spring = Fall). d = 0.28 d = 0.19 d = 0.23 d = 0.20

13 Significant Group*Time interaction for daily steps (p <.001, η 2 =.05). For daily steps, the I and C groups diverged following the I group intervention for 5 months, and converged following the C group intervention. d = d = 0.13 d = 0.30 d = 0.00

 Children’s school travel and daily physical activity are subject to seasonal change  Regardless of whether it is delivered in fall or spring, a 6-week school-based intervention can beneficially influence the morning school commute and daily physical activity of upper elementary school children  Future interventions should increase involvement of parents, and/or be implemented in upper elementary age 14

 Strengths:  Objective measure of commuting behavior  Rigorous determination of commute time  Investigation of medium- and long-term maintenance  Limitations:  Nonequivalence at baseline for total PA and p.m. commute  Non-compliance with data collection protocols (not wearing accelerometer)  Quasi-experimental design 15

16