Skip to content

Evaluating the effects of the Lunchtime Enjoyment Activity and Play (LEAP) school playground intervention

Evaluating the effects of the Lunchtime Enjoyment Activity and Play (LEAP) school playground intervention on children's quality of life, enjoyment and participation in physical activity

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ANZCTR
Registry ID
ACTRN12613001155785
Acronym
LEAP Intervention
Enrollment
234
Registered
2013-10-16
Start date
2010-03-01
Completion date
2010-03-01
Last updated
2020-01-13

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

None listed

Brief summary

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects the LEAP (Lunchtime Enjoyment Activity and Play) school playground intervention had on children’s quality of life, enjoyment and participation in physical activity during school lunch breaks. This study consisted of a movable/recycled materials intervention underpinned by a social-ecological theoretical framework that included baseline, a seven-week post-test and an eight-month follow-up data collection phase. Children within an intervention school and a matched control school aged 5-to-12-years-old were recruited for the study.

Interventions

Movable/recycled materials with no fixed purpose were introduced to a grass field in a brand new Catholic primary school from the end of term 1 to the middle of term 2 (after 7-weeks: post-test) and continued to be introduced until the end of term 2 during Autumn and Winter in 2010. The movable/recycled materials introduced to the playground by the researchers were items generally not considered to be typical play materials for children within schools, with the exception of play balls, hoops and

Movable/recycled materials with no fixed purpose were introduced to a grass field in a brand new Catholic primary school from the end of term 1 to the middle of term 2 (after 7-weeks: post-test) and continued to be introduced until the end of term 2 during Autumn and Winter in 2010. The movable/recycled materials introduced to the playground by the researchers were items generally not considered to be typical play materials for children within schools, with the exception of play balls, hoops and skipping ropes. The materials included milk crates, swimming noodles, buckets, cardboard boxes, tyre tubes, pipes, vacuum/pool hoses, plastic walls and sheets, hessian bags, buckets, water/sand shells, tractor/motorbike and bicycle tyres, swimming boards, exercise mats, buckets and hay bales. All students (5-12-year-olds) had access to the playground simultaneously. The provision of small pieces of portable sports equipment was made available by the school such as footballs, bats and balls as per usual practice in primary schools. Two teachers were rostered on school playground supervision (yard duty) during school breaks as was usual practice, one teacher was allocated to supervise the grass field and the other to supervise the bitumen car park area. The principal briefed the teachers prior to students commencing the intervention, explaining that the items were to encourage children to create their own play and not to intervene unless children’s safety was at risk.

Sponsors

RMIT University
Lead SponsorUniversity

Study design

Allocation
Non-randomised trial
Primary purpose
Treatment

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
All
Age
5 Years to 12 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

A newly developed catholic co-educational primary school with no fixed playground equipment was approached to participate. A control school matched by sector, school type (co-education, prep to year 6; 5-12-year-olds, socio-economic status, size of school grounds and enrolment) was selected and recruited to participate in the study via emails, phone calls and on-site visits to the Principal. Both schools were located in the same geographical area in Regional Western Victoria, Australia. All children in the study participated in their regular daily school routines. All children within each primary school (aged 5-12-years-old) received a plain language statement outlining the research, along with a participant and parental consent form.

Exclusion criteria

Schools from different sectors and possessing different school characteristics to the intervention school were excluded (e.g. such as being single gender, prep to year 12; 5-18-year-olds, socio-economic status, size of school grounds and enrolment). No children were excluded at the intervention or control school from participating in the study.

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ANZCTR · Data processed: Mar 21, 2026