Introduction Sedentary behavior is a relevant health concern in childhood and adolescence and may remain high even among children who participate in structured physical activity. Schools therefore represent a key setting for reducing prolonged sitting by integrating brief opportunities for movement into everyday routines. “DON'T STAY STILL!” was developed as a school-based pathway specifically targeting sedentary behavior through short, feasible, and inclusive “moments of movement.” Methods The initiative was implemented during the 2025–2026 school year within the 63rd edition of the “Trofei di Milano-Cortina 2026” programme. Teachers received the PODiaCar “DON'T STAY STILL!” educational guide and supporting videos and incorporated brief active breaks into routine school activities. Students were also involved through drawings and short videos focused on movement and active lifestyles. Programme participation, implementation, and teacher feedback were assessed descriptively; no objective pre/post measures of sedentary behavior or physical activity were collected. Results The overall programme involved 118 schools and 61,053 students aged 6–13 years, 52% of whom were girls. Within this network, the “DON'T STAY STILL!” pathway generated 2,992 student outputs, including individual and class drawings and videos, while 3,090 students participated in guided “moments of movement” during school-based educational sessions using PODiaCar video exercises. Teacher feedback was positive, although acceptability was not assessed using a validated questionnaire. Conclusions “DON'T STAY STILL!” provides a feasible school-based approach for addressing sedentary behavior by embedding brief movement opportunities into routine educational activities. Its implementation within a large and diverse school network, together with substantial student participation and positive teacher feedback, supports its potential as a scalable strategy for promoting more active school environments. The findings support feasibility, participation, and preliminary acceptability, but do not establish effectiveness in reducing sedentary behavior. Future prospective studies should assess its effects on sedentary time, physical activity, and related behavioral and health outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zuccotti et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: