# Feasibility of a school-based peer-led high-intensity interval training intervention: the Young Fitness Leaders project

PMID: 41735920
Journal: BMC Public Health
Published: 2026-02-24
Authors: Weston KL, Burn NL, Goroski A, Weston M, Galna B, Glossop R, Patterson M, Batten H, Gordon A, Basterfield L

## Question

Is a peer-led school HIIT intervention feasible and acceptable, and does it show signals for improving fitness or psychological outcomes?

## Summary

This school feasibility study tested whether older pupils could lead short HIIT sessions for Year 7 pupils. Recruitment and retention were workable and pupils generally liked the peer-led format, especially boxing-style sessions, but the sessions often did not reach the intended heart-rate intensity.

## Population

- Year 7 pupils receiving the intervention and Year 12-13 pupils acting as Young Fitness Leaders in a deprived-area school in North East England
- Sample size: 44
- Age: Peer recipients and controls about 12.1 +/- 0.3 years; peer leaders 17.3 +/- 0.4 years
- Sex: Peer recipients 8 girls/21; controls 17 girls/23; peer leaders 3 girls/5
- Fitness level: School pupils; not selected as athletes
- Health status: Apparently healthy school pupils able to participate in school physical activity

## Methodology

- Non-randomized controlled feasibility study
- 8 intervention weeks over 9 calendar weeks
- One secondary school
- Controlled study design.

## Protocol

- Peer-led school HIIT.
- Modality: Bodyweight and non-contact boxing.
- Work intervals: About 45 seconds initially, progressing by 5 seconds every fortnight.
- Recovery: 60 seconds.
- Sets or repetitions: 4 repetitions.
- Intensity: Target >=85% age-predicted HRmax.
- Session duration: 15 minutes.
- Frequency: 2 sessions/week.
- Program length: 8 weeks.
- Progression: Work interval length and exercise modality progressed.
- Usual school routine.
- Modality: Usual PE and activity.
- Program length: 8 weeks.

## Outcomes

### Feasibility
Status: improved
Recruitment, retention, and acceptability supported feasibility.

Recruitment: 72% peer recipients, 74% controls, 42% leaders; retention 94%.

### Fidelity heart rate
Status: worse/safety concern
The intervention often missed the intended HIIT threshold.

Mean peak HR was 76% age-predicted maximum; 26% of monitored repetitions reached >=85%.

### Fitness signals
Status: unclear
Fitness outcome estimates were small and imprecise.

20mSRT effect 2.2 shuttles, 95% CI -2.5 to 6.8.

## Practical Insights

- Short peer-led HIIT can fit into school-day slots, but physiological intensity needs active coaching.
- Non-contact boxing may be more engaging than generic bodyweight intervals.
- Scheduling and clothing context can affect acceptability as much as exercise design.

## Limitations

- Non-randomized allocation.
- One school in a deprived area.
- Small sample and few peer leaders.
- Feasibility design not powered for efficacy.
- Low heart-rate fidelity.

## Safety And Adherence

- No intervention-related injuries or adverse events occurred.

## Original Sources

- [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41735920/) (pubmed)
- [DOI](https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-026-26543-w) (doi)
- [PMC full text](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12961876/) (full text)

## Agent Guidance

Preserve the paper-level scope of this note. Do not generalize beyond the population, protocol, measured outcomes, and limitations above.