None listed
Conditions
Brief summary
Australia’s children are among the least active in the world. Physical inactivity is a particularly big problem for children with intellectual disabilities. Schools are ideal places to promote physical activity. This school-based intervention, iPLAY4i, will involve two key steps: we will train participating teachers in how to promote physical activity at school; and we will also support a few extra teachers while they try to promote a better culture of physical activity within the school. We hypothesise that this intervention will lead to benefits for children with intellectual disabilities, specifically: higher physical activity, higher physical fitness, better fundamental movement skills, and higher confidence, motivation, and wellbeing.
Interventions
This intervention aims to build upon two studies conducted with students in mainstream classes (Cohen et al. 2015; Lonsdale et al. 2016). These previous implementations included six components to promote physical activity participation and fundamental movement skill competency. iPLAY for inclusion will include similar components, but will include additional content on positive behaviour support (MacDonald and McGill 2013) and universal design for learning (Ok et al. 2017).
As per previous studi
This intervention aims to build upon two studies conducted with students in mainstream classes (Cohen et al. 2015; Lonsdale et al. 2016). These previous implementations included six components to promote physical activity participation and fundamental movement skill competency. iPLAY for inclusion will include similar components, but will include additional content on positive behaviour support (MacDonald and McGill 2013) and universal design for learning (Ok et al. 2017). As per previous studies (Lonsdale et al. 2016), an iPLAY mentor (employed by the project team) will deliver a professional learning workshop and follow-up individualized mentoring to primary teachers. These activities will be supported by an online learning and resource platform (following Lonsdale et al. 2016). Teachers within the schools will then deliver intervention components. All classroom teachers will deliver curricular components of the intervention (e.g., quality PE and school sport). The curricular components are largely built around making classes SAAFE (Lubans et al. 2017): Supportive, Active, Autonomous, Fair and Enjoyable. Within each school the principal will identify up to three classroom teachers as ‘Leaders’. Leaders will deliver non-curricular components of the intervention (e.g., active playgrounds) and support other teachers with the implementation of curricular components. Mentors will be current and recently retired teachers with NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA) specialist accreditation in Health and PE. These specialist teachers are ideally placed to deliver the intervention as primary school teachers will regard them as credible. During 2.5 days of face-to-face workshops, the project team will train mentors to deliver the intervention.
Sponsors
Australian Catholic University
Study design
Allocation
Randomised controlled trial
Intervention model
Parallel
Primary purpose
Prevention
Masking
Blinded (masking used) (Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
All
Age
6 Years to 12 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
Government primary schools will be invited to participate on the basis of the following criteria: School is within 3 hours of our university School has not previously completed our iPLAY School has 10 or more children with intellectual disabilities in Years 2–5 In those schools, all teachers will be eligible to participate in professional learning, with student-level data only collected from children with intellectual disabilities in Years 2–5.
Exclusion criteria
Children with intellectual disabilities will be excluded under two circumstances. 1] Children will be excluded if they have a physical disability that precludes them from running. Children with mild physical disabilities will still be eligible, because these disabilities are often comorbid with intellectual disabilities. For example, children in wheelchairs would be excluded, but children with mild cerebral palsy would be included. Similarly, children will still be eligible if they have mild, comorbid developmental disorders (e.g., level 1 Autism Spectrum Disorder, mild Childhood-Onset Fluency Disorder); however, 2] children will be excluded if their developmental disorder precludes them from responding to verbal questions (e.g., level 2 and 3 Autism Spectrum Disorder would be excluded based on this criteria).
Outcome results
None listed