Trial reportHealth promotion international2025
Evaluating the Sustaining Play, Sustaining Health programme in Australian early childhood education and care services: a pilot randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Health promotion international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Early childhood education and care (ECEC) services are a recommended setting to deliver interventions improving children's physical activity (PA). Indoor-outdoor free play, where children move freely between indoor-outdoor environments, can increase child PA. However, these programmes in ECECs are often not sustained. This study aims to assess the acceptability, feasibility, impact, adoption and cost of the Sustaining Play, Sustaining Health (SPSH) programme on sustainment of indoor-outdoor free play programmes in ECECs. A 6-month parallel-group pilot randomized controlled trial was conducted with 16 ECEC services across New South Wales, Australia, following removal of COronaVIrus Disease of 2019 (COVID-19) recommendations. Services implementing indoor-outdoor programmes were randomized to (i) SPSH programme (n = 8) or (ii) usual care control group (n = 8). The intervention included eight strategies to target identified barriers, informed by the Integrated Sustainability Framework. Primary outcomes at 6 months were acceptability, feasibility, adoption, cost, and barriers/facilitators. Potential impact (sustainment) was measured at 6 (primary) and 12 months using nonparametric analysis. Overall, 31.48% (17/54) of eligible services consented and 16 randomized. Statistically insignificant mean differences between groups in indoor-outdoor free play were 26.27 minutes at 6 months, and 2.87 minutes at 12 months, favouring the intervention group. The SPSH programme was considered acceptable and feasible and costed AUD $452.38 ($289.74 USD) to deliver per service. There were no changes in sustainability barriers/facilitators. This pilot found mean differences favouring the intervention group for sustaining indoor-outdoor free play programmes in ECECs, particularly at 12 months. Future fully powered trials should consider addressing broader barriers including staff turnover, motivation/attitudes, and fit within broader contexts to increase impact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.