Skip to main content

Table 4 Effect of the intervention according to BMI status

From: Two years of school-based intervention program could improve the physical fitness among Ecuadorian adolescents at health risk: subgroups analysis from a cluster-randomized trial

  All Control Intervention Adjusted Unadjusted
  n Mean (DS) Mean (DS) β [95 % CI] P b β [95 % CI] P d
Fitness (EUROFIT)       
Speed-agility       
Speed shuttle run (s)     0.06c   0.08e
 Normal weight 723 2.65 (3.37) 1.96 (2.41) −0.35 [−1.63; 0.93] 0.59 −0.58 [−1.45; 0.28] 0.19
 Underweight 60 2.72 (3.79) 2.61 (1.93) −1.66 [−6.31; 2.97] 0.48 −0.20 [−1.91; 1.52] 0.82
 Overweighta 188 2.85 (3.71) 1.34 (2.40) −1.85 [−3.62; −0.08] 0.04 −1.51 [−2.59; −0.43] 0.006
Muscle strength and endurance       
Vertical jump (cm) 987 0.07 (6.45) 1.98 (6.80)   0.59c 0.85e
Accelerometer data       
% who meet the PA recommendation (60 min MVPA/day) 130 −18.09 −5.87   0.46 0.57
  1. aThe overweight group includes the obese adolescents
  2. bP-value adjusted for gender, socio economic status, fitness and all interaction terms between covariates and allocation group
  3. cP-value of interactions terms of BMI status (normal weight, underweight and overweight) X allocation group (control/intervention) after adjusting for gender, socio economic status, fitness and including all interactions between covariates and allocation group
  4. dP-value of the unadjusted analysis
  5. eP-value of the interaction term between BMI status (normal weight, underweight and overweight) X allocation group (control/intervention) from unadjusted analysis