The Daily Mile

Question 1

Why is the study needed

Answer 1

• Lack of scientific research into the use of the daily mile.
• To investigate claims that the daily mile increases MVPA, reduces sedentary time, increases fitness and improves body composition

Question 2

Aims of the study

Answer 2

• to investigate the effect that the daily mile has on time spent in MVPA, sedentary behaviour, fitness and body composition.

Question 3

Briefly describe the intervention

Answer 3

• RCT (Gold standard test)
• Involves pupils running and walking around the playground for 15 minutes, done daily, during classroom learning time and in addition to scheduled breaks and PE classes.
• Two primary schools that did not already use the daily mile were selected to take part, one primary school were to start doing the daily mile (intervention school) while the other was not (control school).

Question 4

How did they measure the effect of the intervention?

Answer 4

MVPA and sedentary time using an accelerometer.
Fitness using a 20m shuttle run.
Body composition using skinfold measurements.
Outcomes were measured at baseline and follow up.
Analysed changes in outcomes - Was there a difference in children that received the daily mile compared to those that did not.
How much was the change by? Meaningful and significant?

Question 5

What were the results?

Answer 5

Significant improvements in intervention school compared to control school for:
- Time spent in MVPA (+9 mins). Meaningful as 40 mins extra per week.
- Sedentary Time (<18 mins/day) - Meaningful.
- Fitness (+39.1 metres) Meaningful as children could run farther in shuttle run test compared to control children.
- Body composition ( 1.4mm decrease in skinfold thickness which measures BF)

Question 6

Limitations of study

Answer 6

• Schools not in study for the same duration.
• Outcome measures recorded @ different times/seasons in intervention and control children.
• Baseline differences in control group children as they were older (measured later in school year), fitter (shuttle distance was higher), greater % meeting the MVPA guidelines compared to intervention children.
• Conclusions are too strong, more robust research (RCT involving more schools) is needed.
• Schools were in more affluent areas which means children were not representative of Scottish children.

Question 7

Strengths of study

Answer 7

• Objective methods used to measure outcomes which means measurements of outcomes were accurate.
• Researchers were ISAK trained which improves skinfold measurement accuracy.
• Study had a control group. If no control group, how do you know if there was an improvement in outcomes.