Background Low levels of physical activity (PA) and high levels of sedentary behaviour (SB) have been observed in young people. Both behaviours are detrimental for health with patterns tending to continue into adulthood. There is sustained value in establishing health habits in early years. Even though levels of SB and participation in PA differ among boys and girls, and the effectiveness of interventions to promote PA and/or prevent sedentary behaviours varies by sex/gender to date, sex/gender in systematic reviews is not yet widely considered. Additionally, while tools have been proposed, there is no consensus on the criteria to assess sex/gender in systematic reviews in the context of health promotion. The main objectives of this systematic review are to evaluate the effects of interventions on girls’ and boys’ PA and SB and to appraise the extent to which the studies have taken sex/gender into account. Methods Eleven electronic databases will be searched to identify all relevant (randomized) controlled trials. Two independent reviewers will screen studies, extract data and appraise the quality of studies. The main outcome of the studies will be a quantified measure of PA and/or SB. Risk of bias of individual studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs. Meta-analyses will be conducted when possible among studies with sufficient homogeneity. To evaluate sex/gender considerations in primary studies, we will use a sex/gender checklist that builds on existing tools and was developed during a 2-day, iterative process among a multidisciplinary panel of 16 experts. The GRADE framework will be used to evaluate evidence across studies for each main efficacy outcome. Discussion To our knowledge, our systematic review will be the first to analyse how sex/gender is considered in interventions promoting PA and/or reducing SB in children and adolescents in detail. The review will provide information on how sex/gender aspects have been considered in recent research and the extent to which sex/gender might impact study outcomes. Our findings will be of interest to stakeholders, health promoters, researchers and policy makers who wish to support more equal outcomes from interventions promoting PA and/or reducing SB. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42018109528 . Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-019-0963-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Physical inactivity is often reported in youth and differs among boys and girls. The aim of this study is to assess sex/gender considerations in intervention studies promoting physical activity and reducing sedentary behavior in youth using a sex/gender checklist. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in August 2018 to identify all relevant controlled trials. Studies screened must have reported a quantified measure of physical activity and/or sedentary behavior, and identified participants by sex/gender at baseline. For evaluation of the sex/gender consideration, the authors used a sex/gender checklist developed by expert consensus. Results: The authors reviewed sex/gender considerations in all aspects of intervention development, implementation, and evaluation in 217 studies. Sex/gender aspects were only rudimentarily taken into account, most frequently during statistical analyses, such as stratification or interaction analysis. Conclusions: Sex/gender effects are not sufficiently reported. To develop guidelines that are more inclusive of all girls and boys, future interventions need to document sex/gender differences and similarities, and explore whether sex/gender influences different phases of intervention programs. The newly developed sex/gender checklist can hereby be used as a tool and guidance to adequately consider sex/gender in the several steps of intervention planning, implementation, and evaluation.

Background To evaluate the effects of interventions on children’s and adolescents’ overall physical activity (PA) for boys and girls separately and to appraise the extent to which the studies haven taken sex/gender into account. Methods Systematic review and semi-quantitative analysis. Eleven electronic databases were searched to identify all relevant randomized and non-randomized controlled trials. Studies had to report overall PA as the main outcome to be eligible for inclusion in the review. The main outcomes of the studies is a quantified measure of overall PA. Additionally, all studies had to report sex/gender disaggregated overall PA at baseline and/or follow up and/or explain how they dealt with sex/gender during outcome analysis (i.e., sex/gender adjusted analyses) and/or report that there were no differences in the outcome when looking at sex/gender. PRISMA guidelines were followed. Two authors independently screened studies for eligibility and assessed the risk of bias. Semi-quantitative analyses were conducted to evaluate intervention effects, taking into account the extent to which studies have considered sex/gender aspects. To evaluate sex/gender considerations in primary studies, a newly developed sex/gender checklist was used. The study was registered previously (registration number CRD42018109528). Results In total, 97 articles reporting 94 unique studies with 164 outcomes for overall PA were included in the present review. Average sample size was 829 participants, ranging from five to 9839. Participants’ ages ranged from three to 19 years. Our review shows that overall 35% of PA outcomes had significant effects in increasing overall PA of children and adolescents. Not including single sex/gender studies, 105 out of 120 PA outcomes resulted in same intervention effects for boys and girls. The interventions reported to have similar effects on PA outcomes for boys and girls showed higher quality of reporting sex/gender aspects of measurement instruments, participant flow and intervention content and materials than PA outcomes with effects only in boys or only in girls. Overall, consideration of sex/gender aspects in intervention studies is low. Conclusions There is still a need to address sufficient consideration of sex/gender aspects in developing and implementing interventions in the context of PA.

Active commuting (AC) provides numerous health benefits and is one way to improve physical activity in children and adolescents. Boys are more likely to use active transport modes than girls. Girls and boys benefit differently from interventions that promote AC. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the effects of interventions on girls and boys and to appraise the extent to which previous studies have taken sex/gender into account. Eleven electronic databases were searched to identify all relevant randomized and non-randomized controlled trials based on a priori defined eligibility criteria. Two independent reviewers screened the literature for eligibility and assessed risk of bias. Semiquantitative analyses were conducted to evaluate the effects of intervention effects by taking sex/gender aspects into account. To evaluate sex/gender considerations in interventional studies, a recently developed sex/gender checklist was applied. Twelve studies were included that examined intervention effects on AC in girls and boys. Three intervention studies showed significant effects in increasing AC, with one study favoring girls, one favoring boys, and another focusing on a single sex/gender (only girls). According to the checklist, the overall sex/gender rating highlighted a lack of information in sex/gender consideration. Studies with and without significant effects indicated no differences in the sex/gender checklist. The results indicate that sex/gender is not considered adequately in primary interventional research on AC. To evaluate the effectiveness of intervention in boys and girls, detailed analyses of sex/gender are required, and better reporting about sex/gender-specific intervention content is necessary. In future health research to promote AC, sex/gender should be systematically taken into account.

Aim The main objectives of this systematic review were to evaluate the effects of interventions on leisure-time PA of boys and girls and to appraise the extent to which studies have taken sex/gender into account. Subject and methods PRISMA guidelines were followed. Two researchers independently screened studies for eligibility and assessed the risk of bias. Descriptive analyses were conducted to evaluate intervention effects in relation to the consideration of sex/gender in the studies based on a newly developed checklist. Additionally, meta-analyses were performed to determine the effect of interventions on girls’ and boys’ leisure-time PA. Results Overall 31 unique studies reported 44 outcomes on leisure-time PA and 20,088 participants were included in the current study. Consideration of sex/gender aspects in studies is low. PA outcomes with statistically significant same/similar effects in boys and girls showed higher quality of reporting sex/gender aspects of theoretical and/or conceptual linkages with sex/gender, measurement instruments, intervention delivery, location and interventionists and participant flow than PA outcomes without significant effects in both boys and girls or effects only in boys or girls. Interventions had a small but significant effect on girls (number of included studies (k) = 9, g = 0.220, p = .003) and boys (k = 7, g = 0.193, p = .020) leisure-time PA. Conclusion Higher reporting of sex/gender aspects may improve leisure-time PA of boys and girls. Nevertheless, there remains a need to address sufficient consideration of sex/gender aspects in interventions in the context of PA.