Examining if changes in gender-specific and co-ed intramural programs affect youth physical activity over time: a natural experiment evaluation using school- and student-level data from the COMPASS study

Abstract

Background Despite the benefits of physical activity (PA), the majority of Canadian youth are falling short of the recommended 60 min of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) per day. School-based physical activity programs such as intramurals, are important opportunities for youth to be physically active. There is limited evidence available on the impact of gender-specific (e.g., female-only, male-only) and co-ed intramurals on youth PA over time, however, evidence suggests female-only intramurals may be important for female MVPA. This research aims to capitalize on a natural experiment to generate practice-based evidence on the impact of changes in gender-specific and co-ed intramurals on youth MVPA over time. Methods This study used linked longitudinal school- and student-level data from Ontario secondary schools in year 5 (Y5:2016–2017), year 6 (Y6: 2017–2018) and year 7 (Y7: 2018–2019) of the COMPASS study. Data on intramurals from 55 schools were used to determine the changes to gender-specific and co-ed intramurals that occurred from Y5 to Y6. Baseline demographic characteristics were measured and data on PA and sport participation were collected in Y5, Y6 and Y7 on a sample of 4417 students. Hierarchical linear mixed regression models were used to estimate how changes in gender-specific and co-ed intramurals were associated with youth MVPA over time. Results Participation in intramural, varsity and community sport were all positively and significantly associated with youth MVPA. Changes in gender-specific and co-ed intramurals were not significantly associated with youth MVPA in Y6 or Y7. However, the positive association between maintaining the addition of gender-specific intramurals on female MVPA in Y7 was on par with the significance level of α = 0.05, suggesting that adding gender-specific intramurals may be important for female MVPA. Conclusions Adding gender-specific and co-ed intramurals may not be sufficient strategies to increase PA among youth. Further research should explore the effect of gender-specific intramurals on youth PA, as this study may have been underpowered at the school-level. Gender-specific intramurals may promote a supportive PA environment that promotes MVPA, especially among females. These intramurals may be an important component of more comprehensive strategies to increase youth MVPA.

Understanding the Characteristics of Community Youth Sports Programs Interventions: A Systematic Review and Recommendations

“…Eleven studies (15%) were projects for adults in association with a community organization (Arellano et al, 2018; Barcelona & Young, 2010; Constandt et al, 2020; Hall & Reis, 2019; Hermens et al, 2017; Hurley et al, 2021; Marlier et al, 2015; Parent & Harvey, 2017; Verkooijen et al, 2020; Wegner et al, 2022; Whitley & Johnson, 2015; 11 studies (15%) were projects that combined youth and adults in association with a sports organization (Açıkgöz et al, 2022; Crisp, 2020b; Holt et al, 2013; Morgan et al, 2019; Sobotová et al, 2016; Spaaij, 2013; Whitley, Coble, & Jewell, 2016; four studies (6%) were secondary schools projects with youth (Burns et al, 2021; M. Casey et al, 2013; M.…”

“…This indicates that the health sector sports-based interventions are interesting because the benefits received by the participants of these programs at the community and school level (Burns et al, 2021; Lauwerier et al, 2020). The age group is scattered, and it is not possible to give an exact assessment of how sport is used as an intervention tool and measure the impact on the target audience of the studies.…”

“…Characteristics of the Analysed Sample. Four studies (6%) comprised more than one thousand participants (Beaman et al, 2021;Burns et al, 2021;Richards et al, 2014;six studies (8%) included between 61 and 99 participants (Jeanes, 2013;L. Kelly, 2013;Legg, 2021;Marlier et al, 2015;Morgan et al, 2019;Vella et al, 2018;16 studies (22%) included 21 and 60 participants; 19 studies (27%) included between 100 and 600 participants; 22 studies (31%) included between 8 and 20 participants and four studies (6%) did not report the number of participants (Czupich, 2020;Olushola et al, 2013;Spaaij, 2013;Verkooijen et al, 2020).…”

“…This has been evidenced in inactive people where community sports interventions increase levels of physical activity (Anokye et al, 2018); increase the inclusion of girls in sports opportunities and empower them as sports leaders (Taylor, 2016) within their communities and motivate cities to establish different interventions based on the benefits of physical activity such as reducing health care costs, improving the quality of life and reduce crime (Czupich, 2020). However, studies in schools showed that a lack of adequate strategies does not influence the increase in participation in physical activity in youth (Burns et al, 2021), which can be a cause of low levels of motor competence according to another study on physical activity and health behavior change (Philpott et al, 2021) and the absence of impact in the most deprived communities where more participants need interventions to promote physical and mental health (Richards & Foster, 2013).…”

“…Program Limitations. The programs reported limitations regarding their development and highlighted that in schools the programs were not enough to increase their levels of participation in physical activity between men and women (Burns et al, 2021) and the levels of motor competence developed by the participants were limited but the perception of these was an improvement (Philpott et al, 2021). Limited psychosocial results were reported (Beaman et al, 2021), the participation of vulnerable youth of a single ethnicity was recorded, which does not allow the results to be generalized (Newman & Anderson-Butcher, 2021) since small scopes do not reflect the points of view and memories of the participants (Crisp, 2020b).…”