Mycophenolate Mofetil for First-Line Treatment of Immune Thrombocytopenia.

BACKGROUND: Immune thrombocytopenia is a rare autoimmune disorder with associated bleeding risk and fatigue. Recommended first-line treatment for immune thrombocytopenia is high-dose glucocorticoids, but side effects, variable responses, and high relapse rates are serious drawbacks. METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial conducted in the United Kingdom, we assigned adult patients with immune thrombocytopenia, in a 1:1 ratio, to first-line treatment with a glucocorticoid only (standard care) or combined glucocorticoid and mycophenolate mofetil. The primary efficacy outcome was treatment failure, defined as a platelet count of less than 30×109 per liter and initiation of a second-line treatment, assessed in a time-to-event analysis. Secondary outcomes were response rates, side effects, occurrence of bleeding, patient-reported quality-of-life measures, and serious adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients with immune thrombocytopenia underwent randomization (52.4% male; mean age, 54 years [range 17 to 87]; mean platelet level, 7×109 per liter) and were followed for up to 2 years after beginning trial treatment. The mycophenolate mofetil group had fewer treatment failures than the glucocorticoid-only group (22% [13 of 59 patients] vs. 44% [27 of 61 patients]; hazard ratio, 0.41; range, 0.21 to 0.80; P = 0.008) and greater response (91.5% of patients having platelet counts greater than 100×109 per liter vs. 63.9%; P<0.001). We found no evidence of a difference between the groups in the occurrence of bleeding, rescue treatments, or treatment side effects, including infection. However, patients in the mycophenolate mofetil group reported worse quality-of-life outcomes regarding physical function and fatigue than those in the glucocorticoid-only group. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of mycophenolate mofetil to a glucocorticoid for first-line treatment of immune thrombocytopenia resulted in greater response and a lower risk of refractory or relapsed immune thrombocytopenia, but with somewhat decreased quality of life. (Funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research; FLIGHT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03156452; EudraCT number, 2017-001171-23.).

Interventions to prevent obesity in children aged 12 to 18 years old.

BACKGROUND: Prevention of obesity in adolescents is an international public health priority. The prevalence of overweight and obesity is over 25% in North and South America, Australia, most of Europe, and the Gulf region. Interventions that aim to prevent obesity involve strategies that promote healthy diets or 'activity' levels (physical activity, sedentary behaviour and/or sleep) or both, and work by reducing energy intake and/or increasing energy expenditure, respectively. There is uncertainty over which approaches are more effective, and numerous new studies have been published over the last five years since the previous version of this Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions that aim to prevent obesity in adolescents by modifying dietary intake or 'activity' levels, or a combination of both, on changes in BMI, zBMI score and serious adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in adolescents (mean age 12 years and above but less than 19 years), comparing diet or 'activity' interventions (or both) to prevent obesity with no intervention, usual care, or with another eligible intervention, in any setting. Studies had to measure outcomes at a minimum of 12 weeks post baseline. We excluded interventions designed primarily to improve sporting performance. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our outcomes were BMI, zBMI score and serious adverse events, assessed at short- (12 weeks to < 9 months from baseline), medium- (9 months to < 15 months) and long-term (≥ 15 months) follow-up. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 74 studies (83,407 participants); 54 studies (46,358 participants) were included in meta-analyses. Sixty studies were based in high-income countries. The main setting for intervention delivery was schools (57 studies), followed by home (nine studies), the community (five studies) and a primary care setting (three studies). Fifty-one interventions were implemented for less than nine months; the shortest was conducted over one visit and the longest over 28 months. Sixty-two studies declared non-industry funding; five were funded in part by industry. Dietary interventions versus control The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of dietary interventions on body mass index (BMI) at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) -0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.41 to 0.06; 3 studies, 605 participants), medium-term follow-up (MD -0.65, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.11; 3 studies, 900 participants), and standardised BMI (zBMI) at long-term follow-up (MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.38 to 0.10; 2 studies, 1089 participants); all very low-certainty evidence. Compared with control, dietary interventions may have little to no effect on BMI at long-term follow-up (MD -0.30, 95% CI -1.67 to 1.07; 1 study, 44 participants); zBMI at short-term (MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.01; 5 studies, 3154 participants); and zBMI at medium-term (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.21; 1 study, 112 participants) follow-up; all low-certainty evidence. Dietary interventions may have little to no effect on serious adverse events (two studies, 377 participants; low-certainty evidence). Activity interventions versus control Compared with control, activity interventions do not reduce BMI at short-term follow-up (MD -0.64, 95% CI -1.86 to 0.58; 6 studies, 1780 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably do not reduce zBMI at medium- (MD 0, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.05; 6 studies, 5335 participants) or long-term (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.02; 1 study, 985 participants) follow-up; both moderate-certainty evidence. Activity interventions do not reduce zBMI at short-term follow-up (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.05; 7 studies, 4718 participants; high-certainty evidence), but may reduce BMI slightly at medium-term (MD -0.32, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.11; 3 studies, 2143 participants) and long-term (MD -0.28, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.05; 1 study, 985 participants) follow-up; both low-certainty evidence. Seven studies (5428 participants; low-certainty evidence) reported data on serious adverse events: two reported injuries relating to the exercise component of the intervention and five reported no effect of intervention on reported serious adverse events. Dietary and activity interventions versus control Dietary and activity interventions, compared with control, do not reduce BMI at short-term follow-up (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.13; 11 studies, 3429 participants; high-certainty evidence), and probably do not reduce BMI at medium-term (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.11; 8 studies, 5612 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or long-term (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.16; 6 studies, 8736 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) follow-up. They may have little to no effect on zBMI in the short term, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -0.09, 95% CI -0.2 to 0.02; 3 studies, 515 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and they may not reduce zBMI at medium-term (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.01; 6 studies, 3511 participants; low-certainty evidence) or long-term (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.01; 7 studies, 8430 participants; low-certainty evidence) follow-up. Four studies (2394 participants) reported data on serious adverse events (very low-certainty evidence): one reported an increase in weight concern in a few adolescents and three reported no effect. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence demonstrates that dietary interventions may have little to no effect on obesity in adolescents. There is low-certainty evidence that activity interventions may have a small beneficial effect on BMI at medium- and long-term follow-up. Diet plus activity interventions may result in little to no difference. Importantly, this updated review also suggests that interventions to prevent obesity in this age group may result in little to no difference in serious adverse effects. Limitations of the evidence include inconsistent results across studies, lack of methodological rigour in some studies and small sample sizes. Further research is justified to investigate the effects of diet and activity interventions to prevent childhood obesity in community settings, and in young people with disabilities, since very few ongoing studies are likely to address these. Further randomised trials to address the remaining uncertainty about the effects of diet, activity interventions, or both, to prevent childhood obesity in schools (ideally with zBMI as the measured outcome) would need to have larger samples.

Interventions to prevent obesity in children aged 5 to 11 years old.

BACKGROUND: Prevention of obesity in children is an international public health priority given the prevalence of the condition (and its significant impact on health, development and well-being). Interventions that aim to prevent obesity involve behavioural change strategies that promote healthy eating or 'activity' levels (physical activity, sedentary behaviour and/or sleep) or both, and work by reducing energy intake and/or increasing energy expenditure, respectively. There is uncertainty over which approaches are more effective and numerous new studies have been published over the last five years, since the previous version of this Cochrane review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions that aim to prevent obesity in children by modifying dietary intake or 'activity' levels, or a combination of both, on changes in BMI, zBMI score and serious adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in children (mean age 5 years and above but less than 12 years), comparing diet or 'activity' interventions (or both) to prevent obesity with no intervention, usual care, or with another eligible intervention, in any setting. Studies had to measure outcomes at a minimum of 12 weeks post baseline. We excluded interventions designed primarily to improve sporting performance. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our outcomes were body mass index (BMI), zBMI score and serious adverse events, assessed at short- (12 weeks to < 9 months from baseline), medium- (9 months to < 15 months) and long-term (≥ 15 months) follow-up. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 172 studies (189,707 participants); 149 studies (160,267 participants) were included in meta-analyses. One hundred forty-six studies were based in high-income countries. The main setting for intervention delivery was schools (111 studies), followed by the community (15 studies), the home (eight studies) and a clinical setting (seven studies); one intervention was conducted by telehealth and 31 studies were conducted in more than one setting. Eighty-six interventions were implemented for less than nine months; the shortest was conducted over one visit and the longest over four years. Non-industry funding was declared by 132 studies; 24 studies were funded in part or wholly by industry. Dietary interventions versus control Dietary interventions, compared with control, may have little to no effect on BMI at short-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) 0, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.10 to 0.10; 5 studies, 2107 participants; low-certainty evidence) and at medium-term follow-up (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.12; 9 studies, 6815 participants; low-certainty evidence) or zBMI at long-term follow-up (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.01; 7 studies, 5285 participants; low-certainty evidence). Dietary interventions, compared with control, probably have little to no effect on BMI at long-term follow-up (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.13; 2 studies, 945 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and zBMI at short- or medium-term follow-up (MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.01; 8 studies, 3695 participants; MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.02; 9 studies, 7048 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Five studies (1913 participants; very low-certainty evidence) reported data on serious adverse events: one reported serious adverse events (e.g. allergy, behavioural problems and abdominal discomfort) that may have occurred as a result of the intervention; four reported no effect. Activity interventions versus control Activity interventions, compared with control, may have little to no effect on BMI and zBMI at short-term or long-term follow-up (BMI short-term: MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.13; 14 studies, 4069 participants; zBMI short-term: MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.02; 6 studies, 3580 participants; low-certainty evidence; BMI long-term: MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.10; 8 studies, 8302 participants; zBMI long-term: MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.04; 6 studies, 6940 participants; low-certainty evidence). Activity interventions likely result in a slight reduction of BMI and zBMI at medium-term follow-up (BMI: MD -0.11, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.05; 16 studies, 21,286 participants; zBMI: MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.02; 13 studies, 20,600 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Eleven studies (21,278 participants; low-certainty evidence) reported data on serious adverse events; one study reported two minor ankle sprains and one study reported the incident rate of adverse events (e.g. musculoskeletal injuries) that may have occurred as a result of the intervention; nine studies reported no effect. Dietary and activity interventions versus control Dietary and activity interventions, compared with control, may result in a slight reduction in BMI and zBMI at short-term follow-up (BMI: MD -0.11, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.01; 27 studies, 16,066 participants; zBMI: MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.00; 26 studies, 12,784 participants; low-certainty evidence) and likely result in a reduction of BMI and zBMI at medium-term follow-up (BMI: MD -0.11, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.00; 21 studies, 17,547 participants; zBMI: MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.02; 24 studies, 20,998 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Dietary and activity interventions compared with control may result in little to no difference in BMI and zBMI at long-term follow-up (BMI: MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.16; 16 studies, 22,098 participants; zBMI: MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.01; 22 studies, 23,594 participants; low-certainty evidence). Nineteen studies (27,882 participants; low-certainty evidence) reported data on serious adverse events: four studies reported occurrence of serious adverse events (e.g. injuries, low levels of extreme dieting behaviour); 15 studies reported no effect. Heterogeneity was apparent in the results for all outcomes at the three follow-up times, which could not be explained by the main setting of the interventions (school, home, school and home, other), country income status (high-income versus non-high-income), participants' socioeconomic status (low versus mixed) and duration of the intervention. Most studies excluded children with a mental or physical disability. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The body of evidence in this review demonstrates that a range of school-based 'activity' interventions, alone or in combination with dietary interventions, may have a modest beneficial effect on obesity in childhood at short- and medium-term, but not at long-term follow-up. Dietary interventions alone may result in little to no difference. Limited evidence of low quality was identified on the effect of dietary and/or activity interventions on severe adverse events and health inequalities; exploratory analyses of these data suggest no meaningful impact. We identified a dearth of evidence for home and community-based settings (e.g. delivered through local youth groups), for children living with disabilities and indicators of health inequities.

The status of active after-school clubs among primary school children in England (UK) after the COVD-19 lockdowns: implications for policy and practice.

BACKGROUND: Children's physical activity in England is more dependent on active clubs after the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it is unclear how the COVID-19 pandemic and related cost-of-living crisis have impacted on active club participation, costs and provision. This mixed-methods natural experiment explored school-based and community-based active clubs after lockdowns, using a unique combination of data sources to highlight implications for policy and practice post-COVID-19. METHODS: Cross-sectional questionnaire data on school and community active clubs were collected from 10-11-year-old children pre-COVID-19 in 2017-18 (N = 1,296; 50 schools), in 2021 (N = 393; 23 schools), and 2022 (N = 463; 27 schools). Club participation and attendance frequency were modelled using logistic and Poisson mixed effects models, adjusted for child age, gender and household education. In 2021 and 2022, parents reported expenditure on community-based clubs and schools provided data on school-based club provision, with data summarised descriptively. Qualitative data were collected in 2021 and 2022, with one-to-one interviews with school staff (N = 18) and parents (N = 43), and twelve child focus groups (N = 92), and analysed using the framework method. RESULTS: School-based active club participation was higher in 2022 compared to pre-pandemic (50% /43%), while community-based club participation was lower (74%/80%). Children attended 0.3 fewer clubs per week. Those from lower education households were less likely to participate in both types of active clubs, and girls less likely to attend community clubs. In 2022, the median cost of community and school club sessions were £6.67 and £3.88 respectively, with 52% of school-based clubs free to parents. Schools offered an average of 3.4 active clubs per week for 10-11-year-olds in 2022, with 34% partly/wholly subsidised. Qualitative analysis highlighted the impact of the cost-of-living crisis and COVID-19 pandemic on family resources, encouraging a shift to more affordable and convenient school-based active clubs, which negatively impacted the community-based active club environment. However, many schools struggled to meet this increased demand. CONCLUSIONS: Findings emphasise the importance for policymakers to support schools to meet increased demand for clubs and community clubs to increase affordable and convenient physical activity opportunities. Targeted support is needed to prevent socioeconomic and gender inequalities.

Short and medium-term effects of the COVID-19 lockdowns on child and parent accelerometer-measured physical activity and sedentary time: a natural experiment.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in marked impacts on children's physical activity, with large reductions in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) reported during lockdowns. Previous evidence showed children's activity levels were lower and sedentary time higher immediately post-COVID lockdown, while there was little change in parental physical activity. We need to know if these patterns persist. METHODS: Active-6 is a natural experiment using repeated cross-sectional data conducted in two waves. Accelerometer data were collected on 393 children aged 10-11 and their parents from 23 schools in Wave 1 (June 2021-December 2021), and 436 children and parents from 27 schools in Wave 2 (January 2022-July 2022). These were compared to a pre-COVID-19 comparator group (March 2017-May 2018) of 1,296 children and parents in the same schools. Mean minutes of accelerometer-measured MVPA and sedentary time were derived for week- and weekend-days and compared across waves via linear multilevel models. We also analysed the date of data collection as a time series, to explore temporal patterns via generalised additive mixed models. RESULTS: There was no difference in children's mean MVPA in Wave 2 (weekdays: -2.3 min; 95% CI: -5.9, 1.3 and weekends: 0.6 min; 95% CI: -3.5, 4.6) when compared to the pre-COVID-19 data. Sedentary time remained higher than pre-pandemic by 13.2 min (95% CI:5.3, 21.1) on weekdays. Differences compared to pre-COVID-19 changed over time, with children's MVPA decreasing over winter, coinciding with COVID-19 outbreaks, and only returning to pre-pandemic levels towards May/June 2022. Parents' sedentary time and weekday MVPA was similar to pre-COVID-19 levels, with MVPA higher than pre-pandemic by 7.7 min (95% CI: 1.4, 14.0) on weekends. CONCLUSION: After an initial drop, children's MVPA returned to pre-pandemic levels by July 2022, while sedentary time remained higher. Parents' MVPA remained higher, especially at weekends. The recovery in physical activity is precarious and potentially susceptible to future COVID-19 outbreaks or changes in provision, and so robust measures to protect against future disruptions are needed. Furthermore, many children are still inactive, with only 41% meeting UK physical activity guidelines, and so there is still a need to increase children's physical activity.

A qualitative process evaluation of universal free school meal provision in two London secondary schools.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, one in five households with children experienced food insecurity in 2022, defined as a household-level economic and social condition of limited or uncertain access to adequate food. Free school meals are a public health intervention aimed at reducing food insecurity amongst children. The provision of universal free school meals (UFSM) to secondary school-aged children is a novel and untested intervention in the UK. This study is a process evaluation of a pilot of UFSM in two secondary schools in England. The aim was to understand the feasibility, acceptability, cost implications and lessons for the implementation of UFSM. METHODS: 20 parents, 28 students and 8 school staff from two intervention schools participated in online qualitative interviews, as well as 4 staff from non-intervention schools. The Framework Method of thematic analysis was applied. These data were supplemented with student-led observations of school meal times, and school lunch uptake-data and cost information provided by the local authority delivering the pilot. RESULTS: UFSM in secondary schools is a feasible and acceptable intervention, with coherent goals of increased access to a healthy meal, reduced food insecurity and better nutrition. All participants perceived these goals were met. Acceptability was further enhanced by the perception that UFSM were supporting a greater proportion of low-income families than the national, targeted Free School Meal scheme, as well as being easier to implement. Potential barriers to implementation include limited school kitchen and dining infrastructure, meal quality and choice, and increased queuing times. Participants' concerns that UFSM may benefit middle- and high- income families not in need were not as prevalent as the perception that UFSM was an effective way to support all families with secondary-aged children experiencing food insecurity. CONCLUSION: This small-scale pilot study suggests that UFSM in secondary schools is feasible and acceptable, but more evidence is required from larger studies on the impact on long-term health, psychosocial and educational outcomes. Future, larger studies should also include detailed economic evaluations so this approach can be compared with other possible interventions.

The new normal for children's physical activity and screen viewing: a multi-perspective qualitative analysis of behaviours a year after the COVID-19 lockdowns in the UK.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted children's physical activity. Recent evidence indicated children's accelerometer-measured physical activity levels have, on average, returned to near pre-pandemic levels in 2022, though sedentary behaviour remains higher. However, insufficient physical activity levels among children continues to be a critical public health issue in the UK, with only 41% meeting physical activity guidelines. This study aimed to provide in-depth analysis of how the pandemic has shaped children's physical activity patterns beyond the short-term periods following lockdowns and identify the new challenges to engaging children in physical activity. METHODS: One-to-one interviews with parents (n = 22), school staff (n = 9), and six focus groups with children aged 10-11 years (n = 45) were conducted between February and July 2022. Topics explored changes to children's physical activity and sedentary behaviour patterns, including screen-viewing, and factors influencing any changes. The framework method was used for analysis. RESULTS: Five themes were generated. Theme 1 described residual lockdown habits, including increased screen-viewing within the home, while activities outside the home continued to feel less spontaneous. Theme 2 highlighted an interrupted development of social, emotional, and physical skills among children compared to what would be expected pre-pandemic. This coincided with Theme 3 which reflected increased mental health challenges among families, creating complex barriers to children's physical activity. A new normal for child physical activity was evoked and explored in Theme 4, with greater dependence on structured and organised activities. However, Theme 5 highlighted that girls and children with lower socio-economic position may be especially at risk of decreased physical activity. CONCLUSIONS: There is a new normal for children's physical activity that is characterised by increased dependence on structured and organised physical activities, such as active clubs, and less on unstructured and spontaneous physical activities, such as physical play. While this may suit many children, girls and children from lower socio-economic households face barriers to participating in the new normal. It is important that affordable and equitable opportunities are provided to all children to prevent physical activity and health inequalities.

Screen-viewing behaviours of children before and after the 2020-21 COVID-19 lockdowns in the UK: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic have led to increased screen-viewing among children, especially during strict periods of lockdown. However, the extent to which screen-viewing patterns in UK school children have changed post lockdowns is unclear. The aim of this paper is to examine how screen-viewing changed in 10-11-year-old children over the 2020-21 COVID-19 pandemic, how this compares to before the pandemic, and the influences on screen-viewing behaviour. METHODS: This is a mixed methods study with 10-11-year-olds from 50 schools in the Greater Bristol area, UK. Cross-sectional questionnaire data on minutes of weekday and weekend television (TV) viewing and total leisure screen-viewing were collected pre-COVID-19 in 2017-18 (N = 1,296) and again post-lockdowns in 2021 (N = 393). Data were modelled using Poisson mixed models, adjusted for age, gender, household education and seasonality, with interactions by gender and household education. Qualitative data were drawn from six focus groups (47 children) and 21 one-to-one parent interviews that explored screen-viewing behaviour during the pandemic and analysed using the framework method. RESULTS: Total leisure screen-viewing was 11% (95% CI: 12%-18%) higher post-lockdown compared to pre-COVID-19 on weekdays, and 8% (95% CI: 6%-10%) on weekends, equating to around 12-15 min. TV-viewing (including streaming) was higher by 68% (95% CI: 63%-74%) on weekdays and 80% (95% CI: 75%-85%) on weekend days. Differences in both were higher for girls and children from households with lower educational attainment. Qualitative themes reflected an unavoidable increase in screen-based activities during lockdowns, the resulting habitualisation of screen-viewing post-lockdown, and the role of the parent in reducing post-2020/21 lockdown screen-viewing. CONCLUSIONS: Although screen-viewing was higher post-lockdown compared to pre-COVID-19, the high increases reported during lockdowns were not, on average, sustained post-lockdown. This may be attributed to a combination of short-term fluctuations during periods of strict restrictions, parental support in regulating post-lockdown behaviour and age-related, rather than COVID-19-specific, increases in screen-viewing. However, socio-economic differences in our sample suggest that not all families were able to break the COVID-19-related adoption of screen-viewing, and that some groups may need additional support in managing a healthy balance of screen-viewing and other activities following the lockdowns.

Accelerometer-measured physical activity and sedentary time among children and their parents in the UK before and after COVID-19 lockdowns: a natural experiment.

BACKGROUND: Restrictions due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic reduced physical activity provision for both children and their parents. Recent studies have reported decreases in physical activity levels during lockdown restrictions, but these were largely reliant on self-report methods, with data collected via unrepresentative self-report surveys. The post-pandemic impacts on children's activity levels remain unknown. A key question is how active children become once lockdown restrictions are lifted. METHODS: Active-6 is a repeated cross-sectional natural experiment. Accelerometer data from 1296 children aged 10-11 and their parents were collected in 50 schools in the Greater Bristol area, UK in March 2017-May 2018 (pre-COVID-19 comparator group), and compared to 393 children aged 10-11 and parents in 23 of the same schools, collected in May-December 2021. Mean minutes of accelerometer-measured moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) were derived for weekdays and weekend and compared pre- and post-lockdown via linear multilevel models. RESULTS: After adjusting for seasonality, accelerometer wear time and child/parent demographics, children's mean weekday and weekend MVPA were 7.7 min (95% CI: 3.5 to 11.9) and 6.9 min (95% CI: 0.9 to 12.9) lower in 2021 than in 2018, respectively, while sedentary time was higher by 25.4 min (95% CI: 15.8 to 35.0) and 14.0 min (95% CI: 1.5 to 26.5). There was no evidence that differences varied by child gender or household education. There was no significant difference in parents' MVPA or sedentary time, either on weekdays or weekends. CONCLUSIONS: Children's MVPA was lower by 7-8 min/day in 2021 once restrictions were lifted than before the pandemic for all groups, on both weekdays and weekends. Previous research has shown that there is an undesirable age-related decline in children's physical activity. The 8-min difference reported here would be broadly comparable to the decline that would have previously been expected to occur over a three-year period. Parents' physical activity was similar to pre-pandemic levels. Our results suggest that despite easing of restrictions, children's activity levels have not returned to pre-pandemic levels. There is an urgent need to understand why these changes have occurred and how long they are maintained.

A multi-perspective qualitative exploration of the reasons for changes in the physical activity among 10-11-year-old children following the easing of the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK in 2021.

BACKGROUND: Active-6 is exploring how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted physical activity behaviour among Year 6 children (aged 10-11 years) and their parents in Southwest England. Initial findings from the Active-6 project have shown a 7-8 min decrease in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and an increase in sedentary behaviour among children following the easing of restrictions in the UK in latter half of 2021. This finding suggests that the pandemic has had a persistent impact on child physical activity behaviour. This paper explored the possible mechanisms behind these changes. METHODS: Interviews with parents (n = 21), members of school staff (n = 9) and focus groups with children aged 10-11 years (n = 47) were conducted between August and December 2021 to discuss the impact of the pandemic on child physical activity behaviour. The framework method was used for analysis. RESULTS: Five themes spanning two key stages of the pandemic were described. Three themes related to the period of lockdowns and fluctuating restrictions (March 2020 - April 2021). These included: Theme 1) Lockdown: A short-lived adventure; Theme 2) Access to facilities during restrictions; and Theme 3) The importance of the parent. A further two themes were identified related to the period following the gradual easing of restrictions in April 2021. These included: Theme 4) An overwhelming return to normal; and Theme 5) Reopening fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis suggested that feelings of novelty experienced during the initial stages of lockdown waned as restrictions were prolonged, creating an increasingly challenging period for parents and their children. However, during periods of restrictions, the importance of parental encouragement and access to appropriate facilities in the local and home environment helped facilitate physical activity. Following the easing of COVID-19 restrictions, emotional overwhelm and physical fatigue among children, stemming from a sedentary and socially isolated life in lockdown and other restrictions, were key contributors to the decreased moderate to vigorous physical activity and increased sedentary behaviour that was observed in a related quantitative study.