- Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
- Learn more
Download available
Content available from BMC Public Health
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Scaling-up an efficacious school-based physical
activity intervention: Study protocol for the
‘Internet-based Professional Learning to help
teachers support Activity in Youth’(iPLAY)cluster
randomized controlled trial and scale-up
implementation evaluation
Lonsdale et al.
Lonsdale et al. BMC Public Health (2016) 16:873
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3243-2
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
S T U D Y P R O T O C O L Open Access
Scaling-up an efficacious school-based
physical activity intervention: Study protocol
for the ‘Internet-based Professional Learning
to help teachers support Activity in Youth’
(iPLAY) cluster randomized controlled trial
and scale-up implementation evaluation
Chris Lonsdale
1*
, Taren Sanders
1
, Kristen E. Cohen
2
, Philip Parker
1
, Michael Noetel
3
, Tim Hartwig
4
,
Diego Vasconcellos
1
, Morwenna Kirwan
5
, Philip Morgan
2
, Jo Salmon
6
, Marj Moodie
7
, Heather McKay
8
,
Andrew Bennie
9
, Ron Plotnikoff
2
, Renata L. Cinelli
10
, David Greene
4
, Louisa R. Peralta
11
, Dylan P. Cliff
12
,
Gregory S. Kolt
9
, Jennifer M. Gore
13
, Lan Gao
7
and David R. Lubans
2
Abstract
Background: Despite the health benefits of regular physical activity, most children are insufficiently active. Schools are
ideally placed to promote physical activity; however, many do not provide children with sufficient in-school activity or
ensure they have the skills and motivation to be active beyond the school setting. The aim of this project is to modify,
scale up and evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention previously shown to be efficacious in improving children’s
physical activity, fundamental movement skills and cardiorespiratory fitness. The ‘Internet-based Professional Learning to
help teachers support Activity in Youth’(iPLAY) study will focus largely on online delivery to enhance translational capacity.
Methods/Design: The intervention will be implemented at school and teacher levels, and will include six components: (i)
quality physical education and school sport, (ii) classroom movement breaks, (iii) physically active homework, (iv) active
playgrounds, (v) community physical activity links and (vi) parent/caregiver engagement. Experienced physical education
teachers will deliver professional learning workshops and follow-up, individualized mentoring to primary teachers (i.e.,
Kindergarten –Year 6). These activities will be supported by online learning and resources. Teachers will then deliver the
iPLAY intervention components in their schools. We will evaluate iPLAY in two complementary studies in primary schools
across New South Wales (NSW), Australia. A cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT), involving a representative sample of
20 schools within NSW (1:1 allocation at the school level to intervention and attention control conditions), will assess
effectiveness and cost-effectiveness at 12 and 24 months. Students’cardiorespiratory fitness will be the primary outcome
in this trial. Key secondary outcomes will include students’moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (via accelerometers),
fundamental movement skill proficiency, enjoyment of physical education and sport, cognitive control, performance on
standardized tests of numeracy and literacy, and cost-effectiveness. A scale-up implementation study guided by the
RE-AIM framework will evaluate the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance of the intervention
when delivered in 160 primary schools in urban and regional areas of NSW.
(Continued on next page)
* Correspondence: chris.lonsdale@acu.edu.au
1
Institute for Positive Psychology and Education, Australian Catholic University,
Edward Clancy Building 167-169 Albert St, Strathfield, NSW 2135, Australia
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
© 2016 The Author(s). Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to
the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver
(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Lonsdale et al. BMC Public Health (2016) 16:873
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3243-2
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
(Continued from previous page)
Discussion: This project will provide the evidence and a framework for government to guide physical activity promotion
throughout NSW primary schools and a potential model for adoption in other states and countries.
Trial registration: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12616000731493). Date of registration: June
3, 2016.
Keywords: Cardiorespiratory fitness, Physical activity, Teacher professional development, Teacher professional learning,
Online, Internet
Background
Physical inactivity is a global pandemic, with “far-reach-
ing health, economic, environmental and social conse-
quences”[1]. Among children, the health benefits of
physical activity are extensive and include improved
physical fitness and bone health as well as reduced risk
of obesity and cardiometabolic precursors of diseases
such as type II diabetes [2, 3]. Physical activity may also
improve psychological well-being and prevent mental
health disorders such as depression and anxiety [3–5].
Recent evidence also indicates that, compared with their
less active peers, physically active children can exert bet-
ter cognitive control [6], are more engaged with school
[7], and perform better on standardized tests of aca-
demic achievement [8].
The International Society for Physical Activity and
Health [9] considers schools to be among the seven “best
investments”for evidence-based physical activity promo-
tion. Unfortunately, many schools are failing to provide
children with sufficient opportunities to be active at
school and do not equip them with the necessary skills
and motivation to be active beyond the school setting
[10, 11]. In systematic reviews, multi-component, flex-
ible models were deemed more effective than single
component models [12, 13]. Similarly, the US Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention recommend schools
deliver comprehensive school physical activity programs
[14] that involve coordination across five components:
(i) quality physical education (PE), (ii) activity during the
school day, (iii) activity before and after school, (iv) staff
involvement and (v) family and community involvement.
Despite convincing evidence of their effectiveness, few
studies have implemented and evaluated comprehensive
school physical activity programs. [15] Instead, most in-
terventions have focused on one component of the
school day (e.g., PE or recess/lunch breaks) [16, 17] and
have neglected to address the multiple opportunities for
physical activity promotion that exist within and be-
yond the school setting [18]. Among interventions that
embraced a multi-component approach, few objectively
measured effects on children’s physical activity (e.g., via
accelerometers) [19].
The SCORES intervention was a comprehensive, multi-
component physical activity and fundamental movement
skills program for primary schools [20–22]. A socio-
ecological model [23] provided the framework for the 12-
month intervention, which consisted of components
designed to engage teachers, students, parents and com-
munity sport organizations. Implementation strategies
included: (i) professional learning and mentoring for
teachers, (ii) feedback for teachers based on the quality of
their PE and school sport, (iii) lesson resources for
teachers, (iv) physical activity equipment, (v) school phys-
ical activity policy review and recommendations, (vi)
training student leaders, (vii) parent engagement via news-
letters, homework and information sessions, and (viii) en-
gagement with local community sport. Our efficacy study
[21] showed significant intervention effects at 12 months
for cardiorespiratory fitness (5.4 laps; 95 % CI, 2.3 to 8.6),
daily moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (12.7 mins/
day; 5.0 to 20.5), and overall movement skill competency
(4.9 units; -0.04 to 9.8). In addition, SCORES was delivered
with a high degree of fidelity and teachers and students
reported high satisfaction with the program.
There is a considerable gap between successful interven-
tions like SCORES, and widespread dissemination in real
world contexts [24, 25]. This is crucial, as to improve
health of populations, interventions that have been effect-
ive in research settings must be delivered more broadly
[26] and with less lag time between evidence generation
and implementation. Indeed, there has been a prolifera-
tion of school-based physical activity intervention efficacy
trials in recent years [18], yet these studies have made little
impact on policy and practice [27].
In our project we will scale up and evaluate the effective-
ness of a modified version of the SCORES intervention.
The modified intervention centres around online delivery
of professional learning to teachers. This customized, web-
based delivery system was initially developed for a school-
based physical activity intervention also led by our research
team [28]. Teachers will deliver the intervention to students
and parents and engage with community sport and recre-
ation organizations. The modified intervention will be
known as iPLAY (Internet-based Professional Learning to
help teachers to support Activity in Youth) and will be
among the first comprehensive school-based physical activ-
ity interventions with a large proportion of the program
delivered online. A web-based delivery system is attractive
Lonsdale et al. BMC Public Health (2016) 16:873 Page 2 of 16
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
as it may support scaling up and sustainability, and recent
evidence indicates that online professional learning for
teachers can be as effective as face-to-face training [29].
Aims and hypotheses
We will conduct two complementary studies involving
primary schools across New South Wales (NSW),
Australia. In the first study, we will conduct a cluster
randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a sample of 20
schools. The aim of this trial will be to evaluate the
effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of iPLAY at 12 and
24 months, with cardiorespiratory fitness as the
primary outcome. Key secondary outcomes will include
objectively-measured moderate-to-vigorous physical
activity, fundamental movement skills, cognitive control
and student performance on standardized tests of
numeracy and literacy. We hypothesize that:
1. compared with the control condition, the iPLAY
intervention will produce positive effects on children’s
outcomes in the short-term (post-intervention,
12 months after baseline, primary endpoint for the
trial),
2. these benefits will be maintained 12 months after the
end of the intervention (24 months after baseline), and
3. the intervention will represent value-for-money.
The aim of the second study will be to evaluate the inter-
vention’s wide-scale implementation (scale up). To achieve
this goal we will adopt the RE-AIM framework and assess
Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Main-
tenance of iPLAY in 160 NSW primary schools (i.e.,
Kindergarten –Year 6).
Methods
Design
We will concurrently conduct two complementary eval-
uations (see Fig. 1):
1. A cluster RCT involving 20 schools (1:1 allocation
to intervention and attention control conditions)
to evaluate the Effectiveness and incremental
cost-effectiveness of the iPLAY intervention, with
cardiorespiratory fitness as the primary outcome.
2. A scale-up implementation study will examine iPLAY’s
Reach, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance
with a reduced examination of Effectiveness and
cost-effectiveness. These aspects will be measured
in 160 schools.
All teachers in each school selected for the cluster RCT
and scale-up implementation study will be invited to
complete the iPLAY intervention (or attention control
intervention for 10 schools in the cluster RCT). However,
only the student cohorts in Years 3 and 4 at baseline will
complete outcome assessments (i.e., students in Years 3
and 4 at baseline, students in Years 4 and 5 at post-
intervention [12 months], students in Years 5 and 6 at
maintenance [24 months]). These students will be avail-
able for assessment at all time-points (c.f. most Year 5 and
6 students will leave the school by 24 months), and will
have the cognitive ability to complete the questionnaires
(c.f., Years 1 and 2). In addition, these years represent the
ideal period to develop fundamental movement skill com-
petency [30], which may help prevent the decline in phys-
ical activity typically observed during the transition from
childhood to adolescence [31].
Recruitment, selection and randomization for both
investigations
All government-funded NSW primary schools (N= 1,600)
[32] will be invited to participate in the project. All
schools will be eligible to participate in the scale-up
implementation study, but those designated as ‘Schools for
Specific Purposes’(i.e., for students who require intensive
levels of support) will not be eligible for the cluster RCT.
Schools that participated in the original SCORES efficacy
study [21] will be eligible for the scale-up implementation
study, but will be excluded from the cluster RCT.
Schools will be recruited via presentations at confer-
ences and meetings (e.g., regional meetings of the NSW
Primary Principals Association) and advertisements sent
by the NSW Department of Education and the Australian
Council for Health, Physical Education and Recreation.
We will also advertise via the NSW Department of Educa-
tion Twitter feeds and Facebook pages. We aim to recruit
a total of 180 schools (>10 % of the total number of NSW
government-funded primary schools). From the schools
that express interest prior to May 2016, we will use a
computer-generated algorithm to randomly select 90 to
form Cohort 1. Recruitment will continue through to
March 2017 at which point we will randomly select 90
schools to form Cohort 2.
From within each cohort, we will select 10 schools to
participate in the cluster RCT; the other 80 schools will
participate in the scale-up implementation study. Select-
ing schools for the cluster RCT will involve a four-step
approach. The aims of this process are to ensure that
schools in the cluster RCT are: (i) broadly representative
of schools in NSW and (ii) assigned to trial arms such
that most school-level covariates (e.g., socioeconomic
status [SES], geographic location) are balanced, thereby
increasing the likelihood that children in the two condi-
tions are similar on the outcome variables at baseline.
The four steps are:
1. Stratification: All schools that express interest in the
study and are among the 90 selected to participate
Lonsdale et al. BMC Public Health (2016) 16:873 Page 3 of 16
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
in each cohort will be stratified according to SES
and geographic location. Given the number of
schools is small, the stratification process will require
relatively coarse groupings. The Index of Community
Socio-educational Advantage (ICSEA) will serve as
the SES variable. This index includes information re-
garding parental SES and Indigenous representation
[33]. The index has a median of 1000 and ranges
Australia-wide from 300 to 1300 indicating heavy
negative skew [33]. NSW has a similar distribution
ranging from 582 to 1202 with a median of 1003. We
will split the sample into a higher SES stratum
(ICSEA < =1003) and a lower SES stratum >1003.
These strata will be further split by geographic
distribution using the Australian Bureau of Statistics
remoteness index by postcode. The index has 12
categories but this will be reduced to two: urban (less
remote) and provincial (more remote). This process
will produce four strata: (i) urban-higher SES, (ii)
urban-lower SES, (iii) provincial-higher SES, and (iv)
provincial-lower SES.
2. Match-pairing: We will employ a Euclidian distance
minimization strategy to create pairs of similar
schools from within strata. The variables used in this
minimization process will be: (i) ICSEA, (ii) school
size (number of students enrolled), (iii) average scores
on national standardized test of numeracy and literacy
that are completed by all NSW children (see
outcomes section for further details) and (iv) school
participation (or not) in a state-wide physical activity
and nutrition program, known as Live Life Well at
School [34], that took place from 2008 to 2015.
3. Pair selection: Once schools have been matched using
the minimization procedure, we will select the two or
three most similar pairs of schools from within each
stratum to participate in the cluster RCT. Through
this process, four schools will be selected from each of
the provincial strata and six schools are chosen from
Fig. 1 Modified CONSORT Flow Diagram
Lonsdale et al. BMC Public Health (2016) 16:873 Page 4 of 16
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
each of the urban strata. This strategy will allow for
calculation of average treatment effects and
differences in treatment effects by strata.
4. Randomization: Following baseline data collection,
schools will be randomly assigned from within each
pair to the experimental or control arm of the cluster
RCT. An experienced statistician who is not part of
the research team will conduct the randomization
procedure using a computer-generated algorithm.
From within each cohort of 90 schools, the 80 schools
not selected for the cluster RCT will be included in the
scale-up implementation study.
Intervention
The intervention design and delivery will be identical
for schools in the cluster RCT and the scale-up im-
plementation study. iPLAY will include six compo-
nents to promote physical activity participation and
fundamental movement skill competency (see Table 1).
An ‘iPLAY Mentor’(employed by the project) will de-
liver a professional learning workshop and follow-up
individualized mentoring to primary teachers. These
activities will be supported by an online learning and
resource platform (see implementation strategies in
Fig. 2). 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). Within each school
the principal will identify up to three classroom
teachers as ‘iPLAY Leaders’. Leaders will deliver non-
curricular components of the intervention (e.g., active
playgrounds) and support other teachers with imple-
mentation of curricular components.
iPLAY mentors
Mentors will be current and recently retired teachers with
NSW Board of Studies Teaching and Educational Standards
(BOSTES) specialist accreditation in Health and PE. These
specialist teachers are ideally placed to deliver iPLAY as
primary school teachers will regard them as credible. In
addition to holding BOSTES accreditation in Health and
PE, inclusion criteria for mentors will include: (i) smart-
phone ownership, (ii) basic computer skills, (iii) a valid
driver’s license and (iv) access to a vehicle to travel to
schools. Mentors will be recruited via professional associa-
tions (Australian Council for Health Physical Education
and Recreation), NSW Department of Education social
media advertising and the project team’sexistingprofes-
sional networks.
The project will provide funding to schools to cover
the cost of a substitute teacher when current teachers
who become mentors are seconded to work on iPLAY.
Current teachers will receive no direct payment, but
their training and participation will earn them credit
towards designation as a BOSTES ‘Highly Accomplished
Teacher’. Achieving this level of accreditation increases
teachers’salaries and is required for those seeking school
leadership roles (e.g., Principal).
The project will pay retired teachers a rate ($400/day
or $200/half-day) that is equivalent to the rate for substi-
tute teachers in NSW. All mentors will be reimbursed
for travel expenses when travelling to schools more than
25 km from their home.
iPLAY mentor training During two 7-h face-to-face
workshops, the project team will train mentors to
deliver the intervention. Workshops will include: (i)
familiarization with the intervention components and
procedures and their rationale, (ii) review of answers to
predetermined ‘frequently asked questions’,(iii)discus-
sion regarding methods to establish mentors’credibility,
‘relatability’and likeability [35], (iv) problem solving ex-
ercises regarding likely challenging scenarios, and (v)
role-playing exercises.
iPLAY mentor delivery As shown in in Fig. 2, mentors
will complete the following tasks in each school:
1. Meet with iPLAY leaders to facilitate implementation
of non-curricular intervention components (4 × 1 hour
meetings –1 per term). In most cases, these meetings
will be conducted face-to-face on the same day as
mentors visit schools to observe teachers’delivery of
PE and school sport lessons. However, in some
circumstances (e.g., very small schools in which
mentors only need to visit once or twice to observe all
classroom teachers’PE/school sport lessons), a
teleconference or internet-mediated videoconference
may be chosen to complete this meeting.
2. Deliver a 2-hour workshop at the school to all
teachers. The workshop will focus on the curricular
components of the intervention. It will include a
1-hour classroom session in which the mentors
will present information videos with iPLAY
content and then facilitate discussion and
activities using presentation slides provided by the
project. The workshop will also include a 1-hour
practical session in which the mentor will
demonstrate quality teaching using a lesson plan
provided by the project.
3. Observe one PE or school sport lesson for each
teacher and provide feedback to the teacher during a
30-minute meeting. This observation and feedback
process will require mentors to visit each school,
with the number of visits determined by the number
of teachers in the school. On average, we expect
mentors to visit once per term.
Lonsdale et al. BMC Public Health (2016) 16:873 Page 5 of 16
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Methods to ensure high quality and consistent delivery
of the workshop and the observation feedback meetings
include:
1. At the end of the training workshops and before
delivering the intervention in schools, mentors will
complete an examination regarding project
procedures and workshop content (e.g., answers to
frequently asked questions).
2. During the face-to-face workshops, mentors will
deliver all content to teachers using videos produced
by the project team.
3. Discussion of video content and learning activities for
teachers during the workshop will be based on slides
and a lesson plan provided by the project team.
4. Mentors will access videos and presentation slides
through the project website. Thus, the project team
will be able to verify if and when each component
was accessed.
5. The project team will provide mentors with answers
to frequently asked questions for each workshop,
and update this list as the project progresses.
6. Mentors will upload their lesson observations using
a structured template within the project website or
smartphone app (iOS and Android versions will be
available).
7. Mentors will participate in bi-annual meetings
that will provide them with ongoing professional
learning and support. The project team will lead
these face-to-face meetings.
Table 1 iPLAY Intervention Components
Curricular Components Description Implementation Measurement
Quality PE and
school sport
•Teachers will deliver 150 minutes of planned PE or school
sport each week.
•Lessons will be delivered according to the SAAFE principles
(Supportive, Active, Autonomous, Fair and Enjoyable).
•Students will spend >40 % of PE/sport lesson time being
physically active (i.e., in MVPA).
•Classroom teachers will self-report delivery of PE and
School Sport on eight occasions during the intervention
at the start of each online learning module.
•Mentors will observe and rate each teacher’s delivery
using the SAAFE checklist once during the intervention.
•Monitored using the class activity tracking system
provided to each school.
Classroom movement
breaks
•Teachers will deliver 2 × 3-minute classroom
energizer activities per day (30 minutes per week)
•Teachers will self-report at the start of each of the eight
online learning modules.
•Teachers usage of the video-based classroom movement
breaks on the website (resources section) will be
monitored.
Physically active
homework
•Teachers will provide one physically active homework
activity per week (except in schools that have a
‘no homework’policy)
•Teachers will self-report at the start of each of the eight
online learning modules.
Non-Curricular
Components
Description Implementation Measurement
Active playgrounds •Children will spend >40 % of recess and lunch
breaks in MVPA.
•Leaders will rate via the website their implementation
of active playground strategies. Ratings will occur three
times during the intervention (during meetings with
mentors).
•Student physical activity during breaks will be measured
via accelerometry at each assessment time-point (baseline,
12 months, 24 months), but will not be measured during
the intervention.
Community physical
activity links
•Schools will utilize the ‘Sporting Schools’funding to
offer after-school physical activity program
at least once per week across two school terms.
•During the intervention at least one teacher in
each school will complete accreditation/training
procedures with a recognized sporting body
that will allow them to deliver the Sporting
Schools’program in their school.
•Principals will report on all non-curricular sport and
recreation in each school.
•Teachers will report the sport accreditation/training they
complete.
Parent and caregiver
engagement
•Schools will deliver 1 × newsletter item per
fortnight, which will include a link to the
parent portion of the iPLAY website.
•Schools will deliver 2 × iPLAY update presentations
to parents per year during existing parent-teacher
events.
•Schools will organize one physically active school
fundraising event each year.
•Leaders will record via the website the frequency
of newsletter distribution and parent meetings.
•Parent access to the iPLAY website will be monitored.
•Leaders will provide evidence of school fundraiser events.
Note:MVPA moderate to vigorous physical activity
Lonsdale et al. BMC Public Health (2016) 16:873 Page 6 of 16
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Curricular components –classroom teachers
Classroom teachers will participate in professional learning
designed to help them implement the curricular interven-
tion components. This training will involve a 2-h workshop
(face-to-face), 4 h of online learning (8 × 30 minute
modules), a mentoring meeting, a peer observation, and a
discussion at a staff meeting focused on iPLAY implemen-
tation. Completion of these activities will provide each
classroom teacher with 14 h of professional learning that is
registered with NSW BOSTES. To maintain their accredit-
ation, NSW teachers are required to accumulate 50 h of
BOSTES registered professional learning every five years.
The project team will provide this professional learning
free of charge. The project team will not offer any other
compensation to teachers.
Professional learning for classroom teachers Profes-
sional learning will assist teachers to implement three com-
ponents: (i) quality PE and school sport, (ii) classroom
movement breaks (known as ‘energizers’), and iii) physically
active homework. To begin, an iPLAY mentor will facilitate
one 2-h face-to-face workshop or two 1-h workshops on
separate days at each school. After the initial workshop,
teachers will complete eight online modules designed to
reinforce and extend knowledge and skills gained in the
initial workshop. During the workshop, mentors will
encourage teachers to complete the online modules in
small groups approximately once per month (e.g., at stage
meetings). This collaborative approach is intended to foster
development of an iPLAY community of practice within
each school [36]. However, modules can also be completed
independently.
At the end of the face-to-face workshop, each teacher will
create an individualized learning plan. The learning plan
will describe when each teacher intends to complete each
of eight modules. The website/app will suggest to teachers
that the learning plan accommodates at least one week
between modules. This one-week interval will allow
teachers time to implement and reflect on each teaching
strategy. Upon completion of each module, the website/app
will prompt teachers to reflect on their learning plan
and adjust target dates, as required. Teachers will also
have the ability to modify this learning plan at any
time –i.e., without prompting. During the intervention,
teachers will be prompted via a notification on their
smartphone and/or an email when a new module is due
for completion (according to each teacher’s self-selected,
individualized learning plan).
Online learning activities will include brief instruc-
tional videos and engaging tasks that allow teachers to
understand the rationale behind each teaching strategy
[28]. Each module will be designed to take 30 min to
complete, but teachers will be able to stop and start
mid-module. Each module will include an action plan
Fig. 2 iPLAY Intervention Implementation Strategies
Lonsdale et al. BMC Public Health (2016) 16:873 Page 7 of 16
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
task in which teachers will set implementation goals for
their PE and sport lessons. At the beginning of each
online module, teachers will reflect on their progress
towards goals set in the action plan from the previous
module. In addition to the website, professional learn-
ing will also be available via a smartphone app on both
iOS and Android platforms. In our recent professional
learning trial [28], 109 of 110 NSW teachers owned a
smartphone with one of these two operating systems.
Thus, we expect most teachers in the proposed study
will be able to access the app.
An iPLAY mentor will be assigned to each school and
will observe one 30-min PE or sport lesson delivered by
each consenting classroom teacher. Mentors will then
meet individually with each teacher for 30 min to
promote and guide self-reflection and provide feedback
concerning the observed lesson. Feedback from
mentors will be guided by an online observation check-
list that prompts mentors to discuss the SAAFE (Support-
ive, Active Autonomous, Fair and Enjoyable) teaching
principles [22], which are based on self-determination
theory tenets [37]. During this conversation, the classroom
teacher will answer reflective questions on the website/
app.
Recently introduced regulations in NSW mandate
that teachers engage in peer lesson observation. In
iPLAY, teachers will be observed by one of their peers
while they teach a 30-min PE or sport lesson. After-
wards, the pair will use a SAAFE checklist hosted on
the project website/app as the basis for a 30-min peer
discussion activity. As in the iPLAY mentoring
session, classroom teachers will answer reflective
questions on the website/app during the peer discus-
sion activity.
The final training component for teachers will involve a
30-min small group discussion led by one of their school’s
iPLAY leaders. During this meeting teachers will use the
website/app to answer reflective questions regarding their
implementation of iPLAY components. These meetings
will likely take place during regularly scheduled ‘Stage
Meetings’involving teachers from (i) Early Stage 1 and
Stage 1 –Kindergarten, Years 1 and 2, (ii) Stage 2 –Years
3 and 4 and (iii) Stage 3 –Years 5 and 6.
Teachers who join a school after the iPLAY intervention
has started and/or miss the face-to-face workshop will be
able to complete an online version of that component.
They will complete all other aspects of the program as
usual unless they join the school after the iPLAY interven-
tion has finished and an iPLAY mentor is not available for
the lesson observation component. In this instance, iPLAY
leaders will be asked to facilitate this component.
Classroom teacher delivery Support for classroom
teachers’implementation of the curricular components
will include smartphone prompts, teaching resources, a
class activity monitoring system and the mentoring de-
scribed previously. The iPLAY smartphone app will pro-
vide reminders for teachers to implement strategies from
their action plan. Teachers will be able to choose the
interval for these reminders. The website and smartphone
app will allow teachers to download resources (e.g., lesson
plans, activity descriptions, and classroom movement
break videos) that support intervention implementation.
Also, when teachers set their action plan in each mod-
ule, the web-based platform will identify resources that
are specifically relevant to the skills/activities that the
teacher has planned for the coming weeks. Links to
these resources plus the action plan will be emailed to
the teacher.
In the original SCORES intervention, teachers used
Yamax digital pedometers (Yamax, Eagle Farm,
Australia) and an Excel spreadsheet with an evidence-
based algorithm [38, 39] to calculate the mean
proportion of time their students spent being active
during PE lessons. We have developed an activity
tracking system that provides this information instant-
aneously to teachers at the end of a lesson. The
system utilizes inexpensive pedometers ($20USD)
(SmartLAB Move ANT+ pedometer, HMM, Dossenheim,
Germany) that communicate wirelessly with a smart-
phone app. Each school will be provided with one
activity tracking system which includes 25 pedometers,
a smartphone pre-loaded with the app, and a carrying
case that includes a charging station. Mentors will
demonstrate the system to teachers in the school-based
workshops and provide clarification as required when
they observe each teacher’s lesson. An instructional
video will form part of one of the online modules. A
complete user manual will be available in the resource
section of the website. In the action plans that teachers
complete during online learning modules, they will be
asked to indicate how many times they plan to use the
physical activity monitoring system in their upcoming
lessons. They will also have the option to set a goal for
their students’activity levels during these monitored
lessons.
iPLAY leader training We will work with school prin-
cipals to recruit up to three iPLAY Leaders per school.
These teachers will deliver the non-curricular compo-
nents of the intervention (e.g., active playgrounds) and
support other teachers with their implementation of the
curricular components.
Each iPLAY leader will complete a series of four online
learning modules (30 mins × 4 modules = 2 hours)
designed to teach them how to implement the non-
curricular components of the intervention (see Table 1
for details).
Lonsdale et al. BMC Public Health (2016) 16:873 Page 8 of 16
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
iPLAY leader delivery Once all leaders in a school have
completed the online training, the leaders will meet as a
group with their school’siPLAY mentor. The purpose of
this 1-h meeting will be to set implementation goals for
each non-curricular component and to determine the
specifics of how leaders will support classroom teachers’
delivery of the curricular components (i.e., who will do
what and when). The iPLAY leaders’implementation
plan for each school will be recorded on the website. As
leaders make implementation progress in their schools,
they will log this information, including reflections on
facilitators and barriers.
In addition to recording their implementation of
the non-curricular components on the website/app,
leaders will be asked to meet with their school’s
iPLAY mentor for one hour once per term to discuss
progress and set new implementation goals. This
meeting will also provide an opportunity for leaders
and mentors to discuss classroom teachers’imple-
mentation of the curricular components. Checklists to
guide these meetings will be available on the website
and mentors will be responsible for ensuring these
are logged at the end of the meeting.
Finally, iPLAY leaders will facilitate at least one 30-min
small group discussion session (~10 teachers/group)
during which teachers in their school will reflect on their
implementation of iPLAY components. Mentors will
suggest to leaders that these meetings take place in
the final term of the intervention.
Implementation timeline
Within each cohort, the main iPLAY intervention will be
delivered in four phases that roughly equate to 3.5 school
terms (see Fig. 2), which is approximately 10 months. In
the RCT, the five iPLAY intervention schools from Cohort
1 will begin the intervention starting in August 2016
(Term 3), while Cohort 2 is scheduled for June 2017 (Term
2). In the scale-up implementation study, the 80 schools in
Cohort 1 will be divided into 4 groups that will begin
the intervention on a rolling basis –Group 1 (June
2016 –Term 2), Group 2 (August 2016 –Term 3),
Group 3 (November 2016 –Term 4) and Group 4 (March
2017 –Term 1). A similar roll-out is scheduled for Cohort
2, starting in June 2017. See Fig. 3 for details.
Ongoing implementation
At the end of the main intervention period (3.5 school
terms = approximately 10 months), teachers will con-
tinue to have access to the iPLAY website and will have
the ability to set action plans and access resources as
often as they like. They can also re-visit online learning
modules. Finally, iPLAY leaders in each school will
havetheoptiontoleadupto4×30miniPLAY discus-
sions with classroom teachers each year. These
discussionswillfocusoniPLAY action planning and
will include discussion of facilitators and barriers to
implementation. Classroom teachers who participate
in these discussions and complete a reflection task and
an action plan via the website will earn up to an extra
two BOSTES registered professional learning hours per
year on top of the 14 h earned in the main iPLAY
intervention.
Cluster randomized controlled trial
We will conduct a cluster RCT with an allocation ratio of
1:1 (intervention : attention control) that conforms with
CONSORT guidelines [40]. We will perform assessments
at baseline, post-intervention (12 months after baseline)
and maintenance (24 months after baseline).
Attention control Arm
Teachers in the 10 schools allocated to the attention
control arm will be offered teacher professional learn-
ing designed to improve their delivery of the NSW
Kindergarten–Year 6 Science and Technology curricu-
lum. This program, known as My Scien ce, has been
shown to increase teacher confidence and student
engagement in science [41]. Teachers who complete
the My Science program will receive 10.5 h of BOSTES-
registered teacher professional learning credit. They will
also have the option to complete the iPLAY program at
the end of the study, and earn an additional 14 h of regis-
tered professional learning credit.
The primary purpose of employing an attention con-
trol intervention is to limit principals’and teachers’
disappointment at not receiving the iPLAY interven-
tion, thereby increasing participation during data
collection at the post-intervention and maintenance
phases.
Participants
As noted previously, schools designated as ‘Schools for
Specific Purposes’will not be eligible for the cluster
RCT. Schools that participated in the original SCORES
efficacy study will also be excluded from the cluster
RCT. All teachers in each school selected for the cluster
RCT will be invited to participate in the intervention,
but only students in Years 3 and 4 will complete out-
come assessments.
Procedure
Principals and teachers will provide written informed
consent to participate in the cluster RCT. Students will
provide assent and parents will provide written in-
formed consent for their child to participate. Trained
research assistants will collect all student level out-
comes in the cluster RCT. These data collectors will
not be informed of schools’allocation to the
Lonsdale et al. BMC Public Health (2016) 16:873 Page 9 of 16
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
intervention or control condition; however, due to the
use of social marketing within iPLAY schools (e.g., post-
ers), our ability to meaningfully blind these researchers
is significantly diminished. Despite this limitation, the
potential risk of bias for many measures in this study is
low (e.g., objective measures of physical activity) and
statisticians will be blinded to each school’s allocation.
Primary outcome measure –entire RCT sample
Cardiorespiratory fitness will be assessed using the 20 m
multistage fitness test [42], which has demonstrated
strong validity in studies worldwide [43] and is considered
to be the most appropriate field-based measure [44]. We
will measure cardiorespiratory fitness for all physically
able children in the cluster RCT.
Secondary outcome measures
Student level measures –entire RCT sample
Student physical activity (objective measure) We will
measure students’physical activity behavior over a
period of eight days using GENEActiv accelerometers
(Activinsights, Cambridge, United Kingdom) worn on
the non-dominant wrist. GENEActiv accelerometers are
valid for children [45], and wrist-based accelerometry
may be more acceptable for children compared with
hip-worn monitors, resulting in greater compliance and
reducing missing data [46]. Data will be reduced using
evidenced-based, best-practice procedures at the time of
analysis. At present, this involves using the Euclidean
norm minus one (ENMO) method to apply cut-points
Fig. 3 iPLAY Randomised Controlled Trial and Implementation Study Timelines
Lonsdale et al. BMC Public Health (2016) 16:873 Page 10 of 16
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
[45] to the data, providing estimates of time in different
intensities of activity (e.g., moderate vs. vigorous). Accel-
erometry data will be used to examine: (i) within school
activity, (ii) recess and lunch activity, (iii) after-school
activity, (iv) weekend activity and (v) total activity.
Anthropometry We will measure all students’height
and weight, using stadiometers (Surgical and Medical Prod-
ucts No. 26SM, Medtone Education Supplies, Melbourne,
Australia) and digital scales (UC-321, A&D Company LTD,
Tokyo, Japan), respectively. We will then calculate body
mass index (BMI) and BMI z-scores using the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention methodology [47].
Student characteristics Students will self-report their
sex and date of birth. They will also indicate the country
in which they were born and the language they speak at
home. We will use this information to categorize stu-
dents into one of seven ethnic backgrounds (English,
European, Middle Eastern, Asian, African, South Pacific
or ‘other’), based on the Australian Bureau of Statistics’
Standard Classification of Languages [48]. We will also
ask students to indicate if they are of Indigenous origin
(i.e., Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander). We will assess
student-level socioeconomic status through the child’s
self-reported home suburb, children’s perception of the
number of books in their home (as measured in Trends
in International Mathematics and Science Study) [49],
and a single-item question on perceived socioeconomic
status [50].
Student physical activity (self-report) We will measure
students’activity behaviors using single item measures
of (i) typical physical activity participation [51], (ii) phys-
ical activity participation last week [51], (iii) organized
sport participation in the past year with team and
individual sports measured separately [52] and (iv) active
commuting to school [52].
Teachers’interpersonal style during PE and school
sport We will use a 4-item scale to assess students’per-
ceptions of their teacher’s support of students’psycho-
logical needs. This will involve two items from an adapted
version of the Teacher as Social Context questionnaire
[53], one item adapted from the Health Care Climate
Questionnaire [54] and one item from the Controlling
Teacher Scale [55].
Student behavior, affect and cognition during PE and
school sport We will assess effort through three items, in-
cluding two items from the Student Engagement in School
questionnaire [56] and one item from the effort subscale of
the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory [57]. Enjoyment will be
assessed using three items adapted to PE and school sport
from the Student Engagement in School questionnaire.
Three items will be used to assess students’concentration
in the lessons [58]. Three items from the Use of Strategies
subscale of the Cognitive Processes Questionnaire in
Physical Education [59] will measure strategies students
employ when learning in PE and school sport.
Subjective well-being We will measure students’per-
ceived well-being using 10 items from the WHO’sHealth
Behavior in School-aged Children questionnaire [50].
Academic achievement We will work with NSW
BOSTES to obtain students’Year3and5NAPLAN
numeracy and literacy standardized test scores [60].
Student level measures –sub-sample
Within each school, we will randomly select one class to
form a sub-sample. We expect 18 students per class to
volunteer; therefore, the subsample will include approxi-
mately 360 children. Children in the sub-sample will
complete the following measures in addition to the pre-
viously described measures.
Fundamental movement skill competency
Students’fundamental movement skill competence will
be measured using three object-control skills from the
Test of Gross Motor Development-2 [61]. From the 12
skills available, we selected the overarm throw, catch,
and kick due to their transferability into a variety of
different sports that are popular among Australian
children. Moreover, object control skills are most strongly
associated with physical activity levels in comparison to
locomotor and stability skills [62, 63].
Cognitive control
We will measure children’s working memory and inhib-
ition using a modified AX-Continuous Performance Task
(AX-CPT) [64]. The tests will be administered by trained
research assistants and completed by participants using a
computer. The AX-CPT requires participants to correctly
respond to target trials that occur when the letter ‘X’
(correct-probe) is immediately preceded by the letter’A’
(correct-cue). Non-target trials occur when probes are
letters other than X (collectively referred to as’Y’)and/or
cues are letters other than A (referred to collectively as’B’).
Thus, participants encounter four types of trials: AX, AY,
BX, and BY [65].
Principal level measures –entire sample (online
questionnaires)
Principal characteristics
Principals will self-report their demographic information
(age, sex, ethnicity, and number of years teaching).
Additionally, we will ask principals to declare if they have
Lonsdale et al. BMC Public Health (2016) 16:873 Page 11 of 16
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
ever been accredited as a specialist PE teacher, and to
self-report their physical activity [51] and sport
participation [52].
School characteristics
Principals will complete items measuring the number of
classes, number of students per class, number of
employed teaching staff within their schools, number of
PE specialist teachers and bell times for the school (e.g.,
school start, recess, lunch, and school end times).
School physical activity
We will assess principals’perceptions of facilities, equip-
ment, time allocation, and support for physical education
in their school using 13 items from the NSW School
Physical Activity and Nutrition Survey [66]. A single-item
measure will be used to determine if schools currently
receive ‘Sporting Schools’funding for external providers to
run sport programs within the school.
Teacher level measures–entire sample (online
questionnaires)
Teacher characteristics
As with principals, teachers will self-report their demo-
graphic information (date of birth, sex, ethnicity, and
number of years teaching). We will also ask teachers to
report the stage they are currently teaching, and their
current level of BOSTES accreditation. Additionally, we
will ask teachers to declare if they have ever been
accredited as a specialist PE teacher, and to self-report
their physical activity [51] and sport participation [52].
Teacher confidence
We will assess teacher confidence in teaching PE and
school sport, as well as other key learning areas (e.g.,
English, Mathematics, Science and Technology), by
adapting a measure of non-specialist primary teachers’
confidence to teach PE [67].
Student conduct
A single item measure will be used to assess teachers’
perceptions of their students’behavior [56].
Perceived student engagement
We will measure teachers’perception of their students’
engagement in PE and school sport lessons, as well as
other key learning areas (e.g., English, Mathematics,
Science and Technology) using an adapted version of
the Student Engagement in School Questionnaire [56].
Internet self-efficacy
An eight-item Internet self-efficacy scale will be used to
assess teachers’beliefs in their ability to utilize internet
tools [68].
Job satisfaction, burnout and absenteeism
Single-item measure of overall job satisfaction [69]
and burnout [70] will be used. Additionally, we will
seek permission from teachers to collect from their
principal the number of days absent from work due
to illness.
Statistical analyses and sample size We will test for
between-arm differences in changes in student outcomes
using linear mixed models with standard errors corrected
for clustering. We will analyze data according to intention
to treat principles (main analyses) and per-protocol princi-
ples (sensitivity analyses). We conducted a power analysis
using procedures appropriate for complex nested designs
[71]. In this analysis the effect size for between-arm differ-
ences in cardiorespiratory fitness (primary outcome) was
conservatively set to .35 (note: effect in our efficacy trial
was .54) with intraclass correlations based on our efficacy
trial [21] (class = .09, school = .01). Analysis indicated that
1080 students from 60 classes in 20 schools (i.e., 3 classes
per school) would provide power of .91.
We will explore potential moderators of intervention
effects including children’s age, sex, ethnicity, weight status
and SES, as well as baseline levels of cardio-respiratory
fitness, physical activity and fundamental movement skill
competence. As with the main analyses, we will employ a
mixed modeling approach to explore moderation hypoth-
eses by including appropriate interaction terms in the
regression models. The trial is not powered to detect
interactions; thus, we will employ a significance level
of p< 0.1 to explore potential moderators. We will
explore significant interaction terms by testing sub-
groups differences on the primary outcome and
selected secondary outcomes. We will also explore
potential moderating effects of principal and teacher
characteristics (e.g., specialist PE accreditation) on
student outcomes.
Per protocol analyses will investigate the influence of
iPLAY leaders’and other teachers’adoption and imple-
mentation of the intervention on student outcomes.
Adoption will focus on the proportion of intervention
training components completed (e.g., workshops attended
and online tasks completed), while implementation will
evaluate leaders’and teachers’utilization of strategies in
their schools (as per Table 1).
Linear mixed models will be also used to examine
potential mediating processes. For example, in our
efficacy study we found that changes in fundamental
movement skills mediated the effect of the intervention
on children’s physical activity and cardiorespiratory
fitness. Mediating effects will be estimated using a
cluster-bootstrapped based product-of-coefficients test
that is appropriate for cluster RCTs.
Lonsdale et al. BMC Public Health (2016) 16:873 Page 12 of 16
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Economic evaluation We will conduct an economic
evaluation to determine if iPLAY represents ‘value-for-
money’measured incrementally against the attention
control arm. This allocative efficiency focus will deter-
mine whether the cost of the intervention is justified by
the benefits derived from it, measured against usual
practice. Costs in each arm of the trial will be estimated
from a societal perspective using detailed pathway
analysis to identify resource use, measurement and
valuation processes for the reference year 2018. The
incremental differences in costs will be combined with
the behavioral and biophysical outcomes observed in the
trial to produce a range of incremental cost effectiveness
ratios. In addition to a ‘trial-based evaluation’(costs and
outcomes exactly as per the trial), depending on the
outcomes, a modelled economic evaluation with the
extended time horizon may be undertaken to further
translate the benefits observed in the trial into final
health benefits, assessed as disability-adjusted life years
(DALYs) averted. The modelled economic evaluation will
simulate the impact of increased physical activity and
movement skill competency on overall well-being over
the lifetime of the cohort compared with usual practice.
A Markov model [72] consisting of health states
associated with different levels of physical activities/
movement skill competency will be used to accrue
costs and benefits over the time horizon. The long-term
improved outcome may translate into cost savings which
offset the increased cost associated with the implementa-
tion of iPLAY project. Simulation-modelling using the
@RISK software package will be used to calculate 95 %
uncertainty intervals around the epidemiological probabil-
ities and cost estimates.
Scale-up implementation evaluation
Running alongside the cluster RCT will be a scale-up
implementation study. This evaluation will be a multiple
cohort design, with all schools receiving the intervention.
Measurement will be guided by the RE-AIM framework
[73] and will occur at baseline, 12 and 24 months for each
cohort.
Participants and procedures
Participants will include principals, teachers and students
at government-funded primary schools in NSW. There
will be no exclusion criteria for principals or teachers
within these schools. To be included in the study at least
50 % of Stage 2 (Years 3 and 4) teachers must be willing
to participate in the program, at least one staff member
must be willing to be an iPLAY leader, and the principal
must provide consent for the program to run in the
school. All students who are enrolled in Years 3 or 4
(Stage 2) at baseline and who are able to participate in
physical activity will be eligible for the study, except for
students enrolled in ‘Schools for Specific Purposes’
(i.e., for students who require intensive levels of sup-
port). In these schools, teachers will be eligible to
participate in the study, but students will not be
asked to complete outcome assessments.
Principals and teachers will provide written informed
consent to participate in the scale-up implementation
study. Passive consent procedures will be used regarding
student participation; newsletters will be sent home and
will ask parents to indicate if they do not wish their
child to participate in the study.
Measures
Reach We will examine the extent to which participat-
ing schools are representative of the NSW population, in
terms of school size, SES, and location. Once a school is
recruited into the study we will employ a questionnaire
to ask the principal to identify the “single most import-
ant reason for your decision to participate”. At the end
of recruitment, we will purposively sample 100 schools
(according to size, SES, and location) that do not volun-
teer and follow-up by telephone to determine reasons
for non-participation.
Effectiveness We will conduct a reduced examination
of effectiveness in the scale-up implementation study
compared with the cluster RCT. Assessments will
include all questionnaires and standaridized tests of
numeracy and literacy from the cluster RCT. Other mea-
sures (e.g., 20 m multistage fitness test, accelerometers,
fundamental movement skills, and cognitive control) will
not be obtained in the scale-up implementation study.
Principals and teachers will complete online question-
naires. Classroom teachers will also administer an online
questionnaire to their students to complete self-report
measures. Questionnaires will be administered to princi-
pals, teachers, and students at baseline, post-intervention
(12 months) and maintenance (24 months).
Adoption We will examine the proportion of schools
from the NSW population that volunteer and participate
in the program. We will assess teacher level adoption by
examining the proportion of teachers who complete
each aspect of the training, including attendance at
face-to-face workshops and completion of online compo-
nents, as well as participation in mentor meetings, peer
observations and small group discussions.
Implementation We will monitor implementation as
per Table 1 (curricular and non-curricular components).
Maintenance Using the procedure described above,
we will re-examine effectiveness and implementation
Lonsdale et al. BMC Public Health (2016) 16:873 Page 13 of 16
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
24 months after baseline. To further understand barriers
and facilitators to implementation, we will conduct semi-
structured interviews with purposively selected principals
(n=15), teachers (n=15) and students (n= 15). Sampling
will ensure that interview participants are drawn from
schools in which the intervention had strong effects, weak
effects and no effects. Thematic analysis of transcripts will
indicate ways to improve implementation prior to further
dissemination.
Statistical analyses
The scale-up implementation study will be assessed with a
focus on descriptive statistics concerning reach, adoption,
implementation, and maintenance. We will also use linear
regression to explore the impact of school and community
characteristics on program reach. We will use linear mixed
model analysis to examine changes in outcome variables
from baseline to 12-months and 24-months (i.e., effective-
ness). These effects will be estimated for the entire sample
as well as in key sub-populations (e.g., across teacher sex,
school average SES, teachers with high vs low internet self-
efficacy). Where possible, we will compare iPLAY schools
with expected values within the population (e.g., NAPLAN
scores in similar schools, physical activity participation)
from other data sources such as NSW School Physical Ac-
tivity and Nutrition Survey [66]. We will also compare out-
comes at 12 months (post-intervention) for Cohort 1 with
baseline levels for Cohort 2, taking advantage of the natural
experiment that is inherent in the design of the study.
Economic evaluation
The research question for economic evaluation of the
scale-up implementation study will be to assess, from
a societal perspective, the cost-outcome of scaling up
the iPLAY project(rolloutandimplementationto160
schools) in primary schools within NSW to assess
intervention affordability and sustainability.
The economic analysis will be a cost-outcome descrip-
tion as the one-arm design of the scale-up implementation
study does not include a control arm (which is necessary
for determination of comparative cost-effectiveness). The
primary economic analysis will comprise three compo-
nents: a cost analysis; an outcome analysis and the rela-
tionship between cost and outcomes for the intervention.
Costing of the intervention using opportunity cost princi-
ples will involve the following steps:
Identification of costs to be included, using ‘pathway
analysis’, where activities in all stages of the roll out
of the iPLAY project are fully specified; A societal
perspective and steady state operation of the
intervention will be assumed (up and running to its
full effectiveness potential). Costs will largely relate
to the time costs of specialist mentors, leaders,
classroom teachers, and school principals (using
opportunity cost principles). Any administrative
resources used at the program management level
also will be identified and included, although
research-driven activities will be separated from the
activities that would be carried out should the
program be adopted by primary schools;
Measurement of the resources consumed in natural
units (number of hours spent by specialist mentors/
leaders within school/principals to deliver the
intervention, number and length of school visits, etc.);
Valuation of these resources in monetary units
(using 2018 as the reference year).
In addition, variations in delivery costs of the iPLAY
intervention between participating schools will be identi-
fied in order to determine any factors that may impact
on the roll out of this program throughout NSW
primary schools and its adoption in other jurisdictions.
The economic outcomes for the scale-up implementation
study will be presented as total costs, average costs per
child and per school, separately from the intervention and
maintenance periods. The relationship between costs and
outcomes will be reported as average cost per outcome.
Discussion
Thepurposeofthisstudyistoevaluatetheextenttowhich
an existing, efficacious physical activity intervention can be
scaled-up and disseminated widely using online learning
methods alongside face-to-face implementation support. A
web-based delivery system is attractive as it may support
scaling-up and sustainability. However, little, if any, evi-
dence exists regarding the effectiveness of comprehensive
primary school-based physical activity interventions deliv-
ered using online methods. Using two concurrent studies,
and guided by the RE-AIM framework, our project will
help provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-
effectiveness of teacher professional learning delivered
largely via the Internet to address the issue of physical in-
activity among primary school-aged children.
Abbreviations
BMI, body mass index; BOSTES, Board of Studies, Teaching and Educational
Standards; iPLAY, Internet-based Professional Learning to help teacher support
Activity in Youth; MVPA, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity; NAPLAN, National
Assessment Program –Numeracy and Literacy; PE, Physical Education;
RCT, randomized controlled trial; RE-AIM, Reach Effectiveness –Adoption
Implementation Maintenance; SCORES, Supporting Children’sOutcomes
using Rewards, Exercise and Skills; SES, socioeconomic status; WHO,
World Health Organization
Acknowledgements
None.
Funding
This project is funded by a Partnership Project Grant from the National Health
and Medical Research Council (APP1114281) and a grant from the New South
Wales Department of Education’s School Sport Unit. PP is supported by an
Lonsdale et al. BMC Public Health (2016) 16:873 Page 14 of 16
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award
(DE140100080). JS is supported by a NHMRC Principal Research Fellowship
(APP1026216). MM is supported by a NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence
in Obesity Policy and Food Systems (APP1041020). DPC is supported by an
Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award
(DE140101588). DRL is supported by an Australian Research Council Future
Fellowship (FT140100399).
Availability of data and material
No data has been collected.
Authors’contributions
CL and DL conceived the idea for the study and led the design of all aspects.
CL and TS drafted the manuscript. TS, KC, MN, TH, MK, PM, AB, RC, LP, GK, and
JG contributed to the intervention development. TS, PP, JS, DV, MM, RP, DG, DC
and LG contributed to the study design. HM provided advice on study design
and implementation strategies. All authors edited the manuscript and approved
the final version prior to submission.
Authors’information
None.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Ethical approval for this study was provided by the Australian Catholic University
Human Research Ethics Committee (Ref:2014185 N) and the NSW Department of
Education (Ref: SERAP2014260). Principals, teachers and parents will provide
written consent in the cluster RCT. Students will provide written assent in the
cluster RCT. Principals and teachers will provide written consent in the scale-up
implementation study. Parents will have a written opportunity to decline
participation (i.e., opt out) in scale-up implementation study. Students will
provide oral assent in the scale-up implementation study.
Author details
1
Institute for Positive Psychology and Education, Australian Catholic University,
Edward Clancy Building 167-169 Albert St, Strathfield, NSW 2135, Australia.
2
Priority Research Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition, School of Education,
University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia.
3
Institute for Positive
Psychology and Education and School of Exercise Science, Australian Catholic
University, Edward Clancy Building 167-169 Albert St, Strathfield, NSW 2135,
Australia.
4
School of Exercise Science, Australian Catholic University, Edward
Clancy Building 167-169 Albert St, Strathfield, NSW 2135, Australia.
5
Physical
Activity Research Group, School of Human Health and Social Sciences, Central
Queensland University, Building 18, Yaamba Road, Rockhampton, QLD 4702,
Australia.
6
Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise
and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
7
Deakin Health
Economics, Centre for Population Health Research, Faculty of Health, Deakin
University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
8
Center for Hip Health and Mobility,
University of British Columbia, 7/F, 2635 Laurel Street, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1 M9,
Canada.
9
School of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Locked Bag
1797, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia.
10
School of Education, Australian Catholic
University, 250 Victoria Parade East, Melbourne, VIC 3002, Australia.
11
Faculty of
Education and Social Work, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
12
Early Start Research Institute, School of Education, University of Wollongong,
Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia.
13
Teachers and Teaching Research Centre,
School of Education, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia.
Received: 8 June 2016 Accepted: 20 June 2016
References
1. Kohl HW, Craig CL, Lambert EV, Inoue S, Alkandari JR, Leetongin G,
Kahlmeier S, Group LPASW. The pandemic of physical inactivity: Global
action for public health. Lancet. 2012;380(9838):294–305.
2. Strong WB, Malina RM, Blimkie CJ, Daniels SR, Dishman RK, Gutin B,
Hergenroeder AC, Must A, Nixon PA, Pivarnik JM. Evidence based physical
activity for school-age youth. J Pediatr. 2005;146(6):732–7.
3. Janssen I, LeBlanc AG. Systematic review of the health benefits of physical
activity and fitness in school-aged children and youth. Int J Behav Nutr Phys
Act. 2010;7(40):1–16.
4. Biddle SJ, Asare M. Physical activity and mental health in children and
adolescents: a review of reviews. Br J Sports Med 2011:bjsports90185.
5. Babic MJ, Morgan PJ, Plotnikoff RC, Lonsdale C, White RL, Lubans DR.
Physical activity and physical self-concept in youth: Systematic review and
meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2014;44(11):1589–601.
6. Drollette ES, Shishido T, Pontifex MB, Hillman CH. Maintenance of cognitive
control during and after walking in preadolescent children. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. 2012;44(10):2017–24.
7. Owen KB, Parker PD, Van Zanden B, MacMillan F, Astell-Burt T, Lonsdale C.
Physical activity and school engagement in youth: A systematic review and
meta-analysis. Educ Psychol 2016;51(2):1–17.
8. Singh A, Uijtdewilligen L, Twisk JWR, van Mechelen W, Chinapaw MJM. Physical
activity and performance at school: A systematic review of the literature
including a methodological quality assessment. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2012;
166(1):49–55.
9. International Society for Physical Activity and Health. Investments that work
for physical activity. Br J Sports Med. 2012;46(10):709–12.
10. Crawford D. The future of sport in Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth of
Australia; 2009.
11. Office for Standards in Education Children’s Services and Skills. Beyond 2012
–outstanding physical education for all: Physical education in schools.
Manchester, UK: Office for Standards in Education Children’s Services and
Skills; 2013. www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/120367. Accessed 8 June 2016.
12. van Sluijs EMF, McMinn AM, Griffin SJ. Effectiveness of interventions to
promote physical activity in children and adolescents: Systematic review of
controlled trials. Br Med J. 2007;335(7622):703.
13. Kriemler S, Meyer U, Martin E, van Sluijs E, Andersen L, Martin B. Effect of
school-based interventions on physical activity and fitness in children and
adolescents: A review of reviews and systematic update. Br J Sports Med.
2011;45(11):923–30.
14. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. School health guidelines to
promote healthy eating and physical activity. In: Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly Report. Volume 60 , 5th edn. Atlanta, GA: Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention; 2011.
15. Hills AP, Dengel DR, Lubans DR. Supporting public health priorities:
Recommendations for physical education and physical activity promotion in
schools. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2015;57(4):368–74.
16. Lonsdale C, Rosenkranz RR, Peralta LR, Bennie A, Fahey P, Lubans DR. A
systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions designed to increase
moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in school physical education lessons.
Prev Med. 2013;56(2):152–61.
17. Lonsdale C, Rosenkranz RR, Sanders T, Peralta LR, Bennie A, Jackson B, Taylor
IM, Lubans DR. A cluster randomized controlled trial of strategies to
increase adolescents’physical activity and motivation in physical education:
Results of the Motivating Active Learning in Physical Education (MALP) trial.
Prev Med. 2013;57(5):696–702.
18. Dobbins M, DeCorby K, Robeson P, Husson H, Tirilis D. School-based physical
activity programs for promoting physical activity and fitness in children and
adolescents aged 6-18. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;3(2):1–260. doi:10.
1002/14651858.CD007651.pub2.
19. Metcalf B, Henley W, Wilkin T. Effectiveness of intervention on physical
activity of children: Aystematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials
with objectively measured outcomes. Br Med J. 2012;345:1–11.
20. Cohen KE, Morgan PJ, Plotnikoff RC, Barnett LM, Lubans DR. Improvements
in fundamental movement skill competency mediate the effect of the
SCORES intervention on physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness in
children. J Sports Sci. 2015;33(18):1908–18.
21. Cohen KE, Morgan PJ, Plotnikoff RC, Callister R, Lubans DR. Physical activity
and skills intervention: SCORES cluster randomized controlled trial. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 2015;47(4):765–74.
22. Lubans DR, Morgan PJ, Weaver K, Callister R, Dewar DL, Costigan SA, Finn TL,
Smith J, Upton L, Plotnikoff RC. Rationale and study protocol for the supporting
children’s outcomes using rewards, exercise and skills (SCORES) group randomized
controlled trial: A physical activity and fundamental movement skills intervention
for primary schools in low-income communities. BMC Public Health. 2012;12(1):427.
Lonsdale et al. BMC Public Health (2016) 16:873 Page 15 of 16
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
23. McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A, Glanz K. An ecological perspective on
health promotion programs. Health Educ Behav. 1988;15(4):351–77.
24. Durlak JA, DuPre EP. Implementation matters: A review of research on the
influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors
affecting implementation. Am J Community Psychol. 2008;41(3-4):327–50.
25. NaylorP,NettlefoldL,RaceD,HoyC,AsheMC,HigginsJW,McKayH.
Implementation of school based physical activity interventions: A systematic
review. Prev Med 2015;72:95–115.
26. Milata AJ, Newsonb R, Kingb L, Risselb C, Wolfendenc L, Baumanb A, Redmanc
S, Giffina M. A guide to scaling up population health interventions. Public
Health Research & Practice 2016;26(1):e2611604.
27. Kessler R, Glasgow RE. A proposal to speed translation of healthcare research
into practice: Dramatic change is needed. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40(6):637–44.
28. Lonsdale C, Lester A, Owen KB, White RL, Moyes I, Peralta L, Kirwan M,
Maeder A, Bennie A, MacMillan F, et al. An internet-supported physical
activity intervention delivered in secondary schools located in Low socio-
economic status communities: study protocol for the Activity and
Motivation in Physical Education (AMPED) cluster randomized controlled
trial. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):1.
29. Fishman B, Konstantopoulos S, Kubitskey BW, Vath R, Park G, Johnson H,
Edelson DC. Comparing the impact of online and face-to-face professional
development in the context of curriculum implementation. J Teach Educ.
2013;64(5):426–38.
30. Gallahue D, Ozmun J. Understanding motor development: Infants, children,
adolescents, adults. 6th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill; 2006.
31. Dumith SC, Gigante DP, Domingues MR, Kohl HW. Physical activity change
during adolescence: a systematic review and a pooled analysis. Int J Epidemiol.
2011;40(3):685–98.
32. Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation. Schools and students: 2014
statistical bulletin. Sydney: NSW Department of Education and
Communities; 2015.
33. Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority. Guide to understanding 2013
Index of Community Socio-educational Advantage (ICSEA) values. In.;2014.
34. Healthy Kids: What is Live Life Well @ School? https://www.healthykids.nsw.
gov.au/teachers-childcare/live-life-well-@-school.aspx. Accessed 8 June 2016.
35. Morgan PJ, Young MD, Smith JJ, Lubans DR. Targeted health behavior
interventions promoting physical activity: A conceptual model. Exerc Sport
Sci Rev. 2016;44(2):71–80.
36. Vescio V, Ross D, Adams A. A review of research on the impact of
professional learning communities on teaching practice and student
learning. Teach Teach Educ. 2008;24(1):80–91.
37. Owen KB, Smith J, Lubans DR, Ng JY, Lonsdale C. Self-determined
motivation and physical activity in children and adolescents: A systematic
review and meta-analysis. Prev Med. 2014;67(10):270–9.
38. Scruggs PW, Beveridge SK, Eisenman PA, Watson DL, Shultz BB, Ransdell LB.
Quantifying physical activity via pedometry in elementary physical
education. Medicine & Science in Sport & Exercise. 2003;35(6):1065–71.
39. Guagliano JM, Lonsdale C, Kolt GS, Rosenkranz RR, George ES. Increasing
girls’physical activity during a short-term organized youth sport basketball
program: A randomized controlled trial. J Sci Med Sport 2015;18:412–17.
40. Campbell MK, Elbourne DR, Altman DG. CONSORT statement: Extension to
cluster randomised trials. Br Med J. 2004;328:702–8.
41. Forbes A, Skamp K. Secondary science teachers’and students’involvement in a
primary school community of science practice: How it changed their practices
and interest in science. Research in Science Education 2015;46(1):91–112.
42. Welk G, Meredith MD. Fitnessgram/Activitygram reference guide. Dallas: The
Cooper Institute; 2008.
43. Tomkinson GR, Leger LA, Olds TS, Cazorla G. Secular trends in the performance
of children and adolescents (1980-2000): An analysis of 55 studies of the 20m
shuttle run test in 11 countries. Sports Med. 2003;33(4):285–300.
44. Pate R, Oria M, Pillsbury L (eds.). Fitness measures and health outcomes in
youth. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2012.
45. Hildebrand M, Van Hees VT, Hansen BH, Ekelund U. Age-group comparability
of raw accelerometer output from wrist-and hip-worn monitors. Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 2014;46(9):1816–24.
46. Fairclough SJ, Noonan R, Rowlands AV, van Hees V, Knowles Z, Boddy LM.
Wear compliance and activity in children wearing wrist and hip-mounted
accelerometers. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2015;48(2):245–53.
47. Flegal KM, Cole TJ. Construction of LMS parameters for the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention 2000 growth charts. National Health
Statistics Report. 2013;63:1–4.
48. Australian Standard Classification of Languages (ASCL), 2011. Australian Bureau
of Statistics. 2011. http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/
1267.02011. Accessed 8 June 2016.
49. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
TIMSS 2003 user guide for the international database. Boston: Lynch School
of Education, Boston College; 2005.
50. Roberts C, Freeman J, Samdal O, Schnohr CW, De Looze M, Gabhainn SN, et al.
The Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study: Methodological
developments and current tensions. Int J Public Health. 2009;54(2):140–50.
51. Ridgers ND, Timperio A, Crawford D, Salmon J. Validity of a brief self-report
instrument for assessing compliance with physical activity guidelines
amongst adolescents. J Sci Med Sport. 2012;15(2):136–41.
52. Active Healthy Kids Australia. Is sport enough? The 2014 Active Healthy Kids
Australia report card on physical activity for children and young people.
Adelaide: Active Healthy Kids Australia; 2014.
53. Belmont M, Skinner E, Wellborn J, Connell J. Teacher as social context: A
measure of student perceptions of teacher provision of involvement,
structure, and autonomy support. Rochester: University of Rochester; 1988.
54. Vlachopoulos SP, Katartzi ES, Kontou MG. Fitting multidimensional amotivation
into the self-determination theory nomological network: Application in school
physical education. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci. 2013;17(1):40–61.
55. Jang H, Reeve J, Ryan RM, Kim A. Can self-determination theory explain
what underlies the productive, satisfying learning experiences of
collectivistically oriented Korean students? J Educ Psychol. 2009;101(3):644.
56. Lam S-F, Jimerson S, Wong BP, Kikas E, Shin H, Veiga FH, Hatzichristou C,
Polychroni F, Cefai C, Negovan V. Understanding and measuring student
engagement in school: The results of an international study from 12
countries. Sch Psychol Q. 2014;29(2):213.
57. McAuley E, Duncan T, Tammen VV. Psychometric properties of the intrinsic
motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: a confirmatory factor
analysis. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1989;60:48–58.
58. Standage M, Duda JL, Ntoumanis N. A test of self-determination theory in
school physical education. Br J Educ Psychol. 2005;75(3):411–33.
59. SolmonMA,LeeAM,LeeAM.Developmentof an instrument to assess cognitive
processes in physical education classes. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1997;68(2):152–60.
60. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. NAPLAN
Achievement in Reading, Persuasive Writing, Language Conventions and
Numeracy: National Report for 2014. http://www.nap.edu.au/_resources/
National_Assessment_Program_Literacy_and_Numeracy_national_report_for_
2014.pdf. Accessed 8 June 2016.
61. Ulrich DT. Test of gross motor development Examiner’s manual. 2nd ed.
Austin: Pro.Ed; 2000.
62. Barnett LM, Van Beurden E, Morgan PJ, Brooks LO, Beard JR. Childhood
motor skill proficiency as a predictor of adolescent physical activity.
J Adolesc Health. 2009;44(3):252–9.
63. Cohen KE, Morgan PJ, Plotnikoff RC, Callister R, Lubans DR. Fundamental
movement skills and physical activity among children living in low-income
communities: A cross-sectional study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014;11(1):49–58.
64. Paxton JL, Barch DM, Racine CA, Braver TS. Cognitive control, goal maintenance,
and prefrontal function in healthy aging. Cereb Cortex. 2008;18(5):1010–28.
65. Braver TS, Barch DM. A theory of cognitive control, aging cognition, and
neuromodulation. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2002;26(7):809–17.
66. Hardy LL, King L, Espinel P, Cosgrove C, Bauman A. NSW Schools Physical Activity
and Nutrition Survey (SPANS): Full report. Sydney: NSW Ministry of Health; 2010.
67. Morgan P, Bourke S. Non-specialist teachers’confidence to teach PE: The
nature and influence of personal school experiences in PE. Physical
Education and Sport Pedagogy. 2008;13(1):1–29.
68. Eastin MS, LaRose R. Internet self-efficacy and the psychology of the digital
divide. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2000;6(1):0-0.
69. Wanous JP, Reichers AE, Hudy MJ. Overall job satisfaction: How good are
single-item measures? J Appl Psychol. 1997;82(2):247.
70. West CP, Dyrbye LN, Sloan JA, Shanafelt TD. Single item measures of
emotional exhaustion and depersonalization are useful for assessing
burnout in medical professionals. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(12):1318–21.
71. Westfall J, Kenny DA, Judd CM. Statistical power and optimal design in
experiments in which samples of participants respond to samples of stimuli.
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2014;143(5):2020.
72. Norris JR. Markov chains. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 1998.
73. Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of
health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health.
1999;89(9):1322–7.
Lonsdale et al. BMC Public Health (2016) 16:873 Page 16 of 16
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
Content uploaded by David Revalds Lubans
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David Revalds Lubans on Jun 19, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by David Revalds Lubans
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David Revalds Lubans on Sep 08, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
