Sedentary BehaviourNCT07451535
Intervention to Reduce Sedentary Behavior During School Recess Among Adolescents
A study testing Sedentary Interruption Intervention in people with Sedentary Behaviour and Physical Activity, run by South China Normal University at 12 sites in China.
Trial summary
This cluster randomized controlled trial evaluated the effectiveness of an 8-week, school-based behavioural intervention grounded in the Multi-Process Action Control (M-PAC) framework in promoting interruption of sedentary behaviour during school breaks among adolescents. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 10 to 17 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Sedentary Behaviour, Physical Activity, Adolescents
- What is being tested?
- Sedentary Interruption Intervention
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 1,000 participants
- Where
- 12 sitesChina
- Study dates
- 8 Oct 2025to 30 Jul 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 10 to 17 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child
Who may be able to join
- Students aged 10-17 years
- Enrolled in participating primary or secondary schools
- Able to participate in regular school physical activities and daily routines
- Able to understand and complete study questionnaires
- Willing to comply with study procedures
- Written informed consent obtained from parents or legal guardians
Who cannot join
- Diagnosed medical conditions that contraindicate participation in physical activity
- Physical disabilities, injuries, or health conditions that limit normal participation in school-based activities
- Participation in other structured physical activity or sedentary behavior intervention programs during the study period
- Cognitive or language difficulties that preclude understanding of study procedures or completion of questionnaires
- Inability or unwillingness to comply with study procedures
Trial locations and contacts
12 sites in 1 country.
12 sites in 1 country
China12 sites
Jingshi Liyun Experimental School
Foshan, Guangdong, 528300
Dongping Primary School, Foshan
Foshan, Guangdong, 528315
Zhixin Middle School (Pazhou Experimental School)
Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510006
Experimental Secondary School of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies
Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510420
Gaotangshi Primary School
Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510520
Guangdong University of Education (Panyu Affiliated Junior Secondary School)
Guangzhou, Guangdong, 511436
Haikou No.9 Middle School
Haikou, Hainan, 570102
Pingyao Middle School - Junior High Division
Jinzhong, Shanxi, 031100
Pingyao Middle School - Primary Division
Jinzhou, Shanxi
Overseas Chinese Town Primary School
Shenzhen, Guangdong, 518053
Lin Weimin Memorial Primary School
Zhuhai, Guangdong, 519040
Lihe Primary School
Zhuhai, Guangdong, 519085
About this study
Official title: Effectiveness of an Intervention to Reduce Sedentary Behavior During School Recess Among Adolescents: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial
This cluster randomized controlled trial evaluated the effectiveness of an 8-week, school-based behavioural intervention grounded in the Multi-Process Action Control (M-PAC) framework in promoting interruption of sedentary behaviour during school breaks among adolescents. Twelve primary and secondary schools in China, were recruited and randomly allocated (at the school level) to either an intervention group or a control group to minimise contamination and support pragmatic delivery within the school setting. Schools assigned to the intervention group implemented a multi-component programme comprising educational materials, teacher-delivered guidance, peer reminders, and health lectures, whereas control schools continued their usual routines without receiving intervention materials. The primary outcome was interruption of sedentary behaviour during school breaks assessed using self-reported measures. Secondary outcomes included physical activity levels, emotional and behavioural problems, executive function, and psychological factors related to behaviour regulation, such as motivation, planning, and habit. Findings from this trial are intended to inform the development and implementation of feasible, theory-informed school strategies to reduce sedentary behaviour during school breaks.
Read the detailed description
This study was a cluster randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a school-based intervention grounded in the Multi-Process Action Control (M-PAC) framework to promote interruption of sedentary behaviour during school breaks among adolescents. A cluster randomization design was adopted, with schools as the unit of randomization, to minimise contamination between participants and to enhance the feasibility of intervention delivery within the school setting.
Twelve primary and secondary schools in China were recruited using convenience sampling and randomly allocated to either an intervention group or a control group. Schools were recruited through existing school partnerships and administrative feasibility considerations. The majority of participating schools were located in Guangdong Province (n=9), reflecting the location of the coordinating research team and the primary recruitment network. To enhance the diversity of school contexts and improve the external validity of findings, additional schools were recruited from Hainan (n=1) and Shanxi (n=2) using the same eligibility criteria and standardized implementation procedures across sites. The intervention was implemented over an 8-week period. Schools assigned to the intervention group received a multi-component programme informed by the M-PAC framework, designed to target key behaviour regulation processes relevant to sedentary behaviour interruption, including reflective, regulatory, and reflexive mechanisms. Intervention components included weekly educational leaflets, guidance delivered by physical education teachers, peer reminders during school breaks, and health lectures. Schools assigned to the control group continued their usual school routines and did not receive intervention materials during the study period.
The primary outcome was interruption of sedentary behaviour during school breaks, assessed using self-reported measures. Secondary outcomes encompassed physical activity levels, emotional and behavioural problems, executive function, and social-cognitive variables derived from the M-PAC framework (e.g., attitudes, intention, and habit). In addition, process evaluation indicators (e.g., intervention fidelity) and relevant covariates (e.g., demographic characteristics, academic stress, and the school physical activity environment) were assessed to support interpretation of intervention effects.The study involved a non-clinical population and did not include biomedical or medical health outcomes. The study protocol was approved by the institutional ethics committee, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to participation.
- Being tested
- Sedentary Interruption Intervention
- Keywords
- Cluster randomized controlled trial, sedentary interruption, school breaks, Multi-Process Action Control
- Medical subject headings
- Motor Activity
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Sedentary Interruption InterventionBehavioural
A multi-component, school-based behavioural program implemented over 8 weeks to promote interruption of sedentary behaviour during school breaks. The program was informed by the Multi-Process Action Control framework and designed to support behaviour regulation related to break-time sedentary interruption.
- Educational leaflets (weekly): brief printed materials distributed once per week, providing information on sedentary behaviour and practical strategies to interrupt sitting during school breaks.
- Teacher guidance: physical education (PE) teachers provided brief guidance and reinforcement of key messages during routine school activities/classes, encouraging students to interrupt sedentary time during breaks.
- Peer reminders during school breaks: reminders were delivered by class-appointed student PE representatives.
- Health lectures: health lectures were delivered by members of the research team during the intervention period to support awareness and and motivation.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Usual Pratice Control | No intervention | Schools allocated to the control group continued their usual school routines during the 8-week study period and did not receive any intervention materials or behaviour-change components related to sedentary behaviour interruption. No additional guidance, reminders, or educational materials were provided. Data collection procedures were conducted in the same manner as in the intervention group. |
| Sedentary Interruption Intervention | Experimental | The intervention was grounded in the Multi-Process Action Control (M-PAC) framework and targeted behaviour regulation processes relevant to sedentary interruption. Intervention components included: 1) Weekly educational leaflets providing information on the health risks of prolonged sedentary behaviour and practical strategies to interrupt sitting during school breaks. 2) Guidance delivered by physical education teachers, reinforcing key messages and encouraging active break behaviours. 3) Peer reminders were delivered during school breaks by class-appointed student PE representatives-one student per class nominated by the PE teacher (typically a high-performing student in PE) to support the organization and promotion of physical activity. 4) Health lectures delivered by members of the research team to enhance awareness and motivation related to sedentary behaviour interruption. Receives: Behavioral: Sedentary Interruption Intervention |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Interruption of sedentary behaviour during school breaks
Interruption of sedentary behaviour during routine school breaks (between lessons; excluding longer "big recess" periods) was assessed over the past 7 school days using a single-item self-report measure adapted from the Workplace Sitting Breaks Questionnaire (SITBRQ) for the school context. Students reported the average time spent standing or walking to interrupt sitting during a typical routine class break (0 min, ≤5 min, >5-<10 min, ≥10 min); higher categories indicate greater break-time sedentary interruption. The item wording was modified to reflect school break periods while retaining the original construct of sedentary break behaviour.
Measured: Baseline, Week 8 (Post-intervention), Week 16 (Follow-up, 8 weeks post-intervention), and Week 24 (Follow-up, 16 weeks post-intervention).
Secondary outcomes (12)
Self-reported physical activity
Self-reported physical activity (PA) was assessed over the past 7 days using the Chinese version of the Adolescent Physical Activity Questionnaire (PAQ-A), a validated instrument for measuring general moderate-to-vigorous physical activity among adolescents. Higher scores indicate higher overall physical activity levels.
Measured: Baseline, Week 8 (Post-intervention), Week 16 (Follow-up, 8 weeks post-intervention), and Week 24 (Follow-up, 16 weeks post-intervention).
Emotional and behavioural problems
Emotional and behavioural problems were assessed using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), a 25-item self-report instrument comprising five subscales: Emotional Symptoms, Conduct Problems, Hyperactivity/Inattention, Peer Problems, and Prosocial Behaviour. An example item is "I worry a lot." Items are rated on a 3-point Likert scale (0 = Not true, 1 = Somewhat true, 2 = Certainly true). Subscale scores are calculated by summing relevant items (range 0-10 per subscale), and a Total Difficulties score (range 0-40) is derived by summing the four problem subscales (excluding Prosocial Behaviour), with higher scores indicating greater emotional and behavioural difficulties.
Measured: Baseline, Week 8 (Post-intervention), Week 16 (Follow-up, 8 weeks post-intervention), and Week 24 (Follow-up, 16 weeks post-intervention).
Executive function
Executive function was assessed using the Amsterdam Executive Function Inventory (AEFI), a 13-item self-report questionnaire designed to measure executive functioning in adolescents. The AEFI comprises three subscales: Attention, Self-Control, and Planning. An example item is "I have difficulty concentrating for a long time." Items are rated on a 3-point Likert scale (1 = Not true, 2 = Partly true, 3 = True). Subscale scores are calculated by summing relevant items, and a total executive function score can be derived by summing all items, with higher scores indicating better executive functioning (after reverse scoring negatively worded items as appropriate).
Measured: Baseline, Week 8 (Post-intervention), Week 16 (Follow-up, 8 weeks post-intervention), and Week 24 (Follow-up, 16 weeks post-intervention).
Affective attitude toward interrupting sedentary behaviour during school breaks
Affective attitude toward interrupting sedentary behaviour during school breaks was assessed using three bipolar adjective pairs (unpleasant-pleasant, boring-interesting, and unenjoyable-enjoyable) adapted from established Theory of Planned Behaviour questionnaires. Participants responded to a common stem ("In the next week, interrupting sitting by standing up and moving during routine class breaks is …"), followed by three items. Responses were recorded on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). A mean score was calculated across the three items, with higher scores indicating a more positive affective attitude toward taking active breaks.
Measured: Baseline, Week 8 (Post-intervention), Week 16 (Follow-up, 8 weeks post-intervention), and Week 24 (Follow-up, 16 weeks post-intervention)
Instrumental attitude toward interrupting sedentary behaviour during school breaks
Instrumental attitude toward interrupting sedentary behaviour during school breaks (i.e., taking active breaks) was assessed using three bipolar adjective pairs (harmful-beneficial, worthless-valuable, and bad-good) adapted from established Theory of Planned Behaviour measures. Participants responded to a common stem ("In the next week, interrupting sitting by standing up and moving during routine class breaks is …"), followed by three items (e.g., "In the next week, interrupting sitting by standing up and moving during routine class breaks is harmful-beneficial"). Responses were recorded on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). A mean score was calculated across the three items, with higher scores indicating a more positive instrumental attitude toward taking active breaks.
Measured: Baseline, Week 8 (Post-intervention), Week 16 (Follow-up, 8 weeks post-intervention), and Week 24 (Follow-up, 16 weeks post-intervention)
Perceived capability toward interrupting sedentary behaviour during school breaks
Perceived capability toward interrupting sedentary behaviour during school breaks (i.e., taking active breaks) was assessed using three items adapted from established Theory of Planned Behaviour measures. Participants responded to a common stem ("In the next week, interrupting sitting by standing up and moving during routine class breaks is …"), followed by items assessing perceived ease and capability (e.g., "It is easy for me to interrupt sitting by standing up and moving during routine class breaks in the next week"). Responses were recorded on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). A mean score was calculated across the three items, with higher scores indicating greater perceived capability to take active breaks.
Measured: Baseline, Week 8 (Post-intervention), Week 16 (Follow-up, 8 weeks post-intervention), and Week 24 (Follow-up, 16 weeks post-intervention).
Intention toward interrupting sedentary behaviour during school breaks
Intention toward interrupting sedentary behaviour during school breaks (i.e., taking active breaks) was assessed using three items adapted from established Theory of Planned Behaviour measures. Participants responded to a common stem ("In the next week, interrupting sitting by standing up and moving during routine class breaks is …"), followed by items assessing behavioural intention (e.g., "I intend to interrupt sitting by standing up and moving during routine class breaks in the next week"). Responses were recorded on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). A mean score was calculated across the three items, with higher scores indicating stronger intention to take active breaks.
Measured: Baseline, Week 8 (Post-intervention), Week 16 (Follow-up, 8 weeks post-intervention), and Week 24 (Follow-up, 16 weeks post-intervention).
Perceived opportunity toward interrupting sedentary behaviour during school breaks
Perceived opportunity toward interrupting sedentary behaviour during school breaks (i.e., taking active breaks) was assessed using three items adapted from a Multi-Process Action Control (M-PAC) questionnaire applied to physical activity. Items captured students' perceived availability of opportunities to interrupt sitting during routine class breaks over the subsequent week (e.g., "If I really wanted to interrupt sitting by standing up and moving during routine class breaks over the next week, I would have the opportunity to do so"). Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). A mean score was calculated across the three items, with higher scores indicating greater perceived opportunity to take active breaks during school breaks.
Measured: Baseline, Week 8 (Post-intervention), Week 16 (Follow-up, 8 weeks post-intervention), and Week 24 (Follow-up, 16 weeks post-intervention).
Planning toward interrupting sedentary behaviour during school breaks
Planning toward interrupting sedentary behaviour during school breaks (i.e., taking active breaks) was assessed using six items adapted from questionnaires based on the Health Action Process Approach. Items assessed students' use of planning strategies related to interrupting sitting during routine class breaks over the previous week (e.g., "I made regular plans concerning how to interrupt sitting by standing up and moving during routine class breaks in the last week"). Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). A mean score was calculated across the six items, with higher scores indicating greater use of planning strategies for taking active breaks.
Measured: Baseline, Week 8 (Post-intervention), Week 16 (Follow-up, 8 weeks post-intervention), and Week 24 (Follow-up, 16 weeks post-intervention).
Self-monitoring toward interrupting sedentary behaviour during school breaks
Self-monitoring toward interrupting sedentary behaviour during school breaks (i.e., taking active breaks) was assessed using three items adapted from questionnaires based on the Health Action Process Approach. Items assessed students' engagement in monitoring their break-time sedentary interruption over the previous week (e.g., "I kept track of whether I interrupted sitting by standing up and moving during routine class breaks over the last week"). Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). A mean score was calculated across the three items, with higher scores indicating greater use of self-monitoring strategies for taking active breaks.
Measured: Baseline, Week 8 (Post-intervention), Week 16 (Follow-up, 8 weeks post-intervention), and Week 24 (Follow-up, 16 weeks post-intervention).
Identity toward interrupting sedentary behaviour during school breaks
Identity toward interrupting sedentary behaviour during school breaks (i.e., taking active breaks) was assessed using four items adapted from the Exercise Identity Scale. Items captured the extent to which engaging in break-time sedentary interruption was integrated into students' self-concept (e.g., "When I describe myself to others, I usually include that I interrupt sitting by standing up and moving during school breaks"). Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). A mean score was calculated across the four items, with higher scores indicating stronger identity integration related to taking active breaks.
Measured: Baseline, Week 8 (Post-intervention), Week 16 (Follow-up, 8 weeks post-intervention), and Week 24 (Follow-up, 16 weeks post-intervention).
Habit strength
Habit strength toward interrupting sedentary behaviour during school breaks (i.e., taking active breaks) was assessed using twelve items adapted from the Self-Report Habit Index. Participants responded to a common stem ("In the last month, interrupting sitting by standing up and moving during routine class breaks was …"), followed by items assessing behavioural automaticity and repetition (e.g., "…something I do frequently"). Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). A mean score was calculated across the twelve items, with higher scores indicating stronger habit strength for taking active breaks during school breaks.
Measured: Baseline, Week 8 (Post-intervention), Week 16 (Follow-up, 8 weeks post-intervention), and Week 24 (Follow-up, 16 weeks post-intervention).
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted5 Mar 2026
- Study start8 Oct 2025
- Primary completion30 Jul 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion30 Jul 2026 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Sedentary BehaviourStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- This study used a cluster randomized, parallel-group design, with schools as the unit of randomization. Eligible schools were randomly allocated to either the intervention or control condition to minimize contamination between students within the same school. Outcomes were assessed at the individual (student) level following a standardized protocol.
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 1,000 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- South China Normal University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Ru ZHANG, South China Normal University
- Investigators
- Ru ZHANG, Principal investigator, South China Normal University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07451535
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- SCNU-SPT-2025-041
- Status last verified
- Feb 2026
- First submitted
- 27 Feb 2026
- Last updated
- 5 Mar 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 5 Mar 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Effectiveness of an Intervention to Reduce Sedentary Behavior During School Recess Among Adolescents: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07451535
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SCNU-SPT-2025-041
- Keywords
- Cluster randomized controlled trial, sedentary interruption, school breaks, Multi-Process Action Control
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Active, not recruiting
- Enrolment
- 1,000 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- South China Normal UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 8 Oct 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Jul 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 30 Jul 2026 (estimated)
- First posted
- 5 Mar 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This cluster randomized controlled trial evaluated the effectiveness of an 8-week, school-based behavioural intervention grounded in the Multi-Process Action Control (M-PAC) framework in promoting interruption of sedentary behaviour during school breaks among adolescents. Twelve primary and secondary schools in China, were recruited and randomly allocated (at the school level) to either an intervention group or a control group to minimise contamination and support pragmatic delivery within the school setting. Schools assigned to the intervention group implemented a multi-component programme comprising educational materials, teacher-delivered guidance, peer reminders, and health lectures, whereas control schools continued their usual routines without receiving intervention materials. The primary outcome was interruption of sedentary behaviour during school breaks assessed using self-reported measures. Secondary outcomes included physical activity levels, emotional and behavioural problems, executive function, and psychological factors related to behaviour regulation, such as motivation, planning, and habit. Findings from this trial are intended to inform the development and implementation of feasible, theory-informed school strategies to reduce sedentary behaviour during school breaks.
Detailed description
This study was a cluster randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a school-based intervention grounded in the Multi-Process Action Control (M-PAC) framework to promote interruption of sedentary behaviour during school breaks among adolescents. A cluster randomization design was adopted, with schools as the unit of randomization, to minimise contamination between participants and to enhance the feasibility of intervention delivery within the school setting.
Twelve primary and secondary schools in China were recruited using convenience sampling and randomly allocated to either an intervention group or a control group. Schools were recruited through existing school partnerships and administrative feasibility considerations. The majority of participating schools were located in Guangdong Province (n=9), reflecting the location of the coordinating research team and the primary recruitment network. To enhance the diversity of school contexts and improve the external validity of findings, additional schools were recruited from Hainan (n=1) and Shanxi (n=2) using the same eligibility criteria and standardized implementation procedures across sites. The intervention was implemented over an 8-week period. Schools assigned to the intervention group received a multi-component programme informed by the M-PAC framework, designed to target key behaviour regulation processes relevant to sedentary behaviour interruption, including reflective, regulatory, and reflexive mechanisms. Intervention components included weekly educational leaflets, guidance delivered by physical education teachers, peer reminders during school breaks, and health lectures. Schools assigned to the control group continued their usual school routines and did not receive intervention materials during the study period.
The primary outcome was interruption of sedentary behaviour during school breaks, assessed using self-reported measures. Secondary outcomes encompassed physical activity levels, emotional and behavioural problems, executive function, and social-cognitive variables derived from the M-PAC framework (e.g., attitudes, intention, and habit). In addition, process evaluation indicators (e.g., intervention fidelity) and relevant covariates (e.g., demographic characteristics, academic stress, and the school physical activity environment) were assessed to support interpretation of intervention effects.The study involved a non-clinical population and did not include biomedical or medical health outcomes. The study protocol was approved by the institutional ethics committee, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to participation.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- This study used a cluster randomized, parallel-group design, with schools as the unit of randomization. Eligible schools were randomly allocated to either the intervention or control condition to minimize contamination between students within the same school. Outcomes were assessed at the individual (student) level following a standardized protocol.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Usual Pratice Control | No intervention | –Schools allocated to the control group continued their usual school routines during the 8-week study period and did not receive any intervention materials or behaviour-change components related to sedentary behaviour interruption. No additional guidance, reminders, or educational materials were provided. Data collection procedures were conducted in the same manner as in the intervention group. |
| Sedentary Interruption Intervention | Experimental | Behavioral: Sedentary Interruption InterventionThe intervention was grounded in the Multi-Process Action Control (M-PAC) framework and targeted behaviour regulation processes relevant to sedentary interruption. Intervention components included: 1) Weekly educational leaflets providing information on the health risks of prolonged sedentary behaviour and practical strategies to interrupt sitting during school breaks. 2) Guidance delivered by physical education teachers, reinforcing key messages and encouraging active break behaviours. 3) Peer reminders were delivered during school breaks by class-appointed student PE representatives-one student per class nominated by the PE teacher (typically a high-performing student in PE) to support the organization and promotion of physical activity. 4) Health lectures delivered by members of the research team to enhance awareness and motivation related to sedentary behaviour interruption. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 10 to 17 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Students aged 10-17 years
- Enrolled in participating primary or secondary schools
- Able to participate in regular school physical activities and daily routines
- Able to understand and complete study questionnaires
- Willing to comply with study procedures
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Diagnosed medical conditions that contraindicate participation in physical activity
- Physical disabilities, injuries, or health conditions that limit normal participation in school-based activities
- Participation in other structured physical activity or sedentary behavior intervention programs during the study period
- Cognitive or language difficulties that preclude understanding of study procedures or completion of questionnaires
- Inability or unwillingness to comply with study procedures
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Sedentary Interruption InterventionA multi-component, school-based behavioural program implemented over 8 weeks to promote interruption of sedentary behaviour during school breaks. The program was informed by the Multi-Process Action Control framework and designed to support behaviour regulation related to break-time sedentary interruption. 1. Educational leaflets (weekly): brief printed materials distributed once per week, providing information on sedentary behaviour and practical strategies to interrupt sitting during school breaks. 2. Teacher guidance: physical education (PE) teachers provided brief guidance and reinforcement of key messages during routine school activities/classes, encouraging students to interrupt sedentary time during breaks. 3. Peer reminders during school breaks: reminders were delivered by class-appointed student PE representatives. 4. Health lectures: health lectures were delivered by members of the research team during the intervention period to support awareness and and motivation. | Behavioural | Sedentary Interruption Intervention |
Primary outcome
Interruption of sedentary behaviour during school breaks
Time frame: Baseline, Week 8 (Post-intervention), Week 16 (Follow-up, 8 weeks post-intervention), and Week 24 (Follow-up, 16 weeks post-intervention).
Interruption of sedentary behaviour during routine school breaks (between lessons; excluding longer "big recess" periods) was assessed over the past 7 school days using a single-item self-report measure adapted from the Workplace Sitting Breaks Questionnaire (SITBRQ) for the school context. Students reported the average time spent standing or walking to interrupt sitting during a typical routine class break (0 min, ≤5 min, >5-<10 min, ≥10 min); higher categories indicate greater break-time sedentary interruption. The item wording was modified to reflect school break periods while retaining the original construct of sedentary break behaviour.
12 secondary outcomes
Self-reported physical activity
Time frame: Baseline, Week 8 (Post-intervention), Week 16 (Follow-up, 8 weeks post-intervention), and Week 24 (Follow-up, 16 weeks post-intervention).
Emotional and behavioural problems
Time frame: Baseline, Week 8 (Post-intervention), Week 16 (Follow-up, 8 weeks post-intervention), and Week 24 (Follow-up, 16 weeks post-intervention).
Executive function
Time frame: Baseline, Week 8 (Post-intervention), Week 16 (Follow-up, 8 weeks post-intervention), and Week 24 (Follow-up, 16 weeks post-intervention).
Affective attitude toward interrupting sedentary behaviour during school breaks
Time frame: Baseline, Week 8 (Post-intervention), Week 16 (Follow-up, 8 weeks post-intervention), and Week 24 (Follow-up, 16 weeks post-intervention)
Instrumental attitude toward interrupting sedentary behaviour during school breaks
Time frame: Baseline, Week 8 (Post-intervention), Week 16 (Follow-up, 8 weeks post-intervention), and Week 24 (Follow-up, 16 weeks post-intervention)
Perceived capability toward interrupting sedentary behaviour during school breaks
Time frame: Baseline, Week 8 (Post-intervention), Week 16 (Follow-up, 8 weeks post-intervention), and Week 24 (Follow-up, 16 weeks post-intervention).
Intention toward interrupting sedentary behaviour during school breaks
Time frame: Baseline, Week 8 (Post-intervention), Week 16 (Follow-up, 8 weeks post-intervention), and Week 24 (Follow-up, 16 weeks post-intervention).
Perceived opportunity toward interrupting sedentary behaviour during school breaks
Time frame: Baseline, Week 8 (Post-intervention), Week 16 (Follow-up, 8 weeks post-intervention), and Week 24 (Follow-up, 16 weeks post-intervention).
Planning toward interrupting sedentary behaviour during school breaks
Time frame: Baseline, Week 8 (Post-intervention), Week 16 (Follow-up, 8 weeks post-intervention), and Week 24 (Follow-up, 16 weeks post-intervention).
Self-monitoring toward interrupting sedentary behaviour during school breaks
Time frame: Baseline, Week 8 (Post-intervention), Week 16 (Follow-up, 8 weeks post-intervention), and Week 24 (Follow-up, 16 weeks post-intervention).
Identity toward interrupting sedentary behaviour during school breaks
Time frame: Baseline, Week 8 (Post-intervention), Week 16 (Follow-up, 8 weeks post-intervention), and Week 24 (Follow-up, 16 weeks post-intervention).
Habit strength
Time frame: Baseline, Week 8 (Post-intervention), Week 16 (Follow-up, 8 weeks post-intervention), and Week 24 (Follow-up, 16 weeks post-intervention).
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 5 Mar 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Sedentary Behaviour
Active, not recruiting
A Pilot Factorial Trial of an Integrated Lifestyle Intervention
Physical Inactivity, Overweight and Obesity
Recruiting
Yoga vs. Stretching-Strengthening: Physical Fitness in Sedentary Young Adults
Sedentary Lifestlye, Exercise
Active, not recruitingObservational study
A Longitudinal Cohort Study to Evaluate Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Disease in Haiti
Hypertension, Diabetes
Recruiting
Scalable TELeheaLth Cancer CARe: The STELLAR Program to Treat Cancer Risk Behaviors
Obesity, Smoking Cessation
Not yet recruiting
Be Well at Work-Plus: A Depression and Physical Activity Intervention for Hospital Service Workers (Aim 3)
Depression, Physical Inactivity
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Ru ZHANG principal investigator
South China Normal University
12 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Sedentary Interruption Intervention in people with Sedentary Behaviour and Physical Activity, run by South China Normal University at 12 sites in China.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 5 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: under way, not looking for participants, as of the sponsor's last update on 5 Mar 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 12 sites in China. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Interruption of sedentary behaviour during school breaks (time frame: Baseline, Week 8 (Post-intervention), Week 16 (Follow-up, 8 weeks post-intervention), and Week 24 (Follow-up, 16 weeks post-intervention).). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 5 Mar 2026.