# Effectiveness of a family–school–community collaborative physical activity intervention

## TL;DR

A family-school-community collaboration improved students' attitudes toward physical activity but had limited impact on actual activity levels.

## Contribution

The study evaluates a collaborative physical activity intervention's impact on exercise cognition and physical activity in primary school students.

## Key findings

- The intervention improved exercise cognition and perceived benefits of physical activity.
- Post-intervention physical activity levels were not significantly higher in the intervention group.
- Positive exercise perceptions were associated with higher physical activity levels.

## Abstract

Family–school–community collaboration is increasingly recognized as a strategy to promote physical activity (PA) in youth, yet evidence in primary school settings—particularly for exercise-related cognition—remains limited.

To evaluate a family–school–community collaborative PA intervention on PA and exercise cognition in primary school students, and to examine associations between PA and exercise cognition.

In this quasi-experimental, one-academic-year study, 515 fifth-grade students (10–11 years) from a public primary school in Guangdong, China, were allocated to an intervention group (n = 255) or a control group (n = 260). The intervention group received a structured family–school–community collaborative PA program, while controls received usual physical education. PA was assessed using PAQ-CN; exercise cognition (benefits/barriers) was measured using EBBS-CN. Intervention effects were estimated using class-clustered ANCOVA adjusting for baseline outcome values and sex; exploratory associations were examined using class-clustered regression models.

PA increased from pre- to post-intervention in both groups. In adjusted class-clustered ANCOVA models, the intervention was associated with higher exercise cognition (β = 3.94, 95% CI: 1.29–6.60; p = 0.003; Hedges’ g = 0.26) and higher perceived exercise benefits (β = 3.46, 95% CI: 1.03–5.89; p = 0.008; Hedges’ g = 0.24). The adjusted between-group effect on PA was not statistically significant (β = 0.11, 95% CI: −0.15–0.36; p = 0.418; Hedges’ g = 0.18), nor was the effect on exercise barriers (β = 0.55, 95% CI: −0.60–1.70; p = 0.354; Hedges’ g = 0.08). In exploratory class-clustered regression models (with baseline PA adjustment), post-intervention PA was positively associated with exercise cognition and perceived exercise benefits (both p ≤ 0.001), but not with perceived exercise barriers (p = 0.453).

In this quasi-experimental, single-school study, the intervention was associated with improvements in exercise cognition and perceived benefits, while incremental between-group gains in PA were modest and not statistically robust after accounting for class clustering. These findings support multi-contextual approaches and underscore the potential value of strengthening positive exercise perceptions within coordinated PA promotion efforts.