A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of Teachers’ Implementation of ‘The Daily Move’ in Irish Primary Schools Using the RE-AIM Framework

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have presented my comments and suggestions related to this paper in the pdf attached. The article has the potential to inform and shape practice as well as further research when finalised. Well done on a very interesting piece of research related to the sustainability of an initiative designed to enhance young children's school day, a crucially important consideration in any 21st century school context not just in Ireland but internationally. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough and constructive review of our manuscript. The revisions made in response to your measured feedback have substantially strengthened the quality and clarity of this resubmission.

Comment 1: 

Research Design Section 2.3 ‘Implementation’

The research design is generally clear. However, while the abstract claims that The Daily Move (TDMo) is a modified version of The Daily Mile the paper fails to explain this link. In this section on implementation it is not clear

1. If the children engage in a specific movement activity each of the five school days
2. If the children replaced The Daily Mile with the Daily Move for the duration of the intervention
3. If the children engaged in The Daily Move sometimes rather than the Daily Mile
4. If the children engaged in both The Daily Move and the Daily Mile on some days
5. If the children who were used to (and may have enjoyed the Daily Mile) were asked to choose TDM or TDMo
6. If the teacher decided which option to present to children
7. If the Daily Dodge was chosen, did children play this for 15 minutes? If so, how much PA…depends a lot on space/taggers/chasers? Difficult to know how much PA involved although other aspects e.g. emotional/relational elements are developed
8. If the earlier study by the authors reported that time constraints were a challenge (20 mins of MVPA although ‘nutrition’ as a further focus…so was this a challenge?) did this study respond? Was the time allocation still 20 minutes?

Response 1: 

Thank you for your considered feedback. Table 1 in the revised document outlines the core principles of The Daily Move that guided teachers’ delivery of the initiative. Further information regarding how the initiative was implemented has also been included in Section 2.3 TDMo Implementation (Lines 197-201; 203-206).

Comment 2:  

Link of initiative to Physical Education

Introduction:

As the stated aim of the intervention is to evaluate teachers’ implementation of TDMo and to assess its sustainability (Line 108/109) some further elements need to be addressed. Given that Physical Education is a focussed curriculum subject and allocated time in the school week:

• Why did the study not address the teacher’s implementation of physical education? This would seem very important: was TDMo valued more than opportunities they provide within physical education? Was any data gathered on the teacher’s teaching of physical education? If not, this could be regarded as a limitation of the study and should be signposted within the limitations.

Response 2: 

Thank you for this considered observation. The Daily Mile is an initiative that has been designed to be implemented in addition to physical education, rather than as a replacement for mandated PE curriculum time. To clarify this distinction, additional information has been added into the Introduction section (Line 57-58). As this study focuses on evaluating the teachers’ implementation and sustainability of TDMo, a modified version of The Daily Mile, assessment of teachers’ PE delivery was not considered to align with the specific aims of the study and was therefore not included. However, we acknowledge the possibility that teachers’ implementation of TDMo may have impacted their PE delivery. This is now recognised as a limitation of the study and is explicitly noted in the revised manuscript (Line 653-656).

Comment 3: 

Attrition rate in the study

• The attrition rate is reported very openly and appropriately. A significant number of teachers (clearly reported) dropped off from answering the questionnaires: does this raise a question about the design of the questionnaires? (It is very helpful that they are available in the supplementary material). Does this suggest that they no longer implemented the intervention? Some implications should be drawn in the discussion section about these two elements.

Response 3: 

Thank you for this important feedback. The revised document discusses the implications of the attrition rate (Lines 465-472).

Comment 4:

The quotations from the qualitative data

 The use of the qualitative data is a very important and helpful element of this paper. Some quotations merit reconsideration in light of the apparent focus of the study:

8. 8. Table 1: Row 3 ‘Leadership skills’…did the TDMo hand over responsibility to the child to lead sessions. This seems out of kilter with the description of the TDMo…teacher led? Sustainability? Also, 7 year old children although very capable in so many ways, realistically is the quality of provision to a class of peers in any way guaranteed. I understand the teacher reported positively on this but I would question if this was part of the ‘nature’ of the TDMo

Comment 4: 

Thank you for feedback. The development of The Daily Move was grounded in Self-Determination Theory, with particular focus on providing children with a sense of autonomy (Line 69-72). Participating teachers were given complete flexible regarding their delivery of the initiative. Affording children the opportunity to lead an activity was at the discretion of the teacher should if they felt the quality of implementation would not be negatively affected and does align with the 8^th core implementation principle ‘Be creative’. Table 1 of the revised manuscript presents the core implementation principles of The Daily Move to better support the reader’s understanding of the delivery process of the initiative.

Comment 5:

1. 9: Table 2:row 1 although reporting the voice of teachers the article should address the teachers’ perspective that ‘physical activity’ should be ‘as much of a priority as other subjects’…It is important to pick up on the discussion here that the Active Flag initiative (cited elsewhere in the paper) provides significant support for promotion of physical activity. Arguably, this initiative is prioritised over physical education…with full-time staff and budgets allocated on a yearly basis. This is well covered in the discussion section but needs to address the point the teacher made more specifically i.e. prioritising physical activity.

Response 5:

Thank you for this observation. The point raised in a focus group, that teachers should prioritise physical activity opportunities for children more explicitly within the school day, is addressed in the discussion section in relation to the potential of counteracting the impact that curriculum-related pressures and time constraints have on limiting implementation of The Daily Move (Line 557-560).

Comment 6: 

Row 2: was the leader speaking here of the TDMo? If so, these options are not signalled in the paragraph on 2.3…the TDMo is becoming more confusing to a reader if they try to understand the nature of the TDMo informed by these quotations.

Response 6:

We appreciate this fair question. The participant who provided the quote was speaking of her voluntary efforts to act as a ‘champion’ for The Daily Move by encouraging other colleagues to adopt the delivery of daily 15-minute movement breaks and sharing practical suggestions based on her own experience. This role was undertaken independently and was not an inclusion criterion to participate in the study.

Comment 7: 

1. 11: Table 3: Reference in Row 2 to innovative teachers is puzzling. Could teachers select any activity? Is there guidance on ‘safety’…stepping on to windowsills (provided windows are glass) seems unsafe.

Response 7: 

Thank you for feedback. It was clearly communicated to all participating teachers that any Daily Move activity should be delivered in a safe manner, with particular emphasis on minimising the risk of injury to children. It is presumed that the teacher referenced adhered to these safety expectations when facilitating indoor activity. The example provided, which referenced the physical layout of the classroom (i.e. windowsills), is intended to illustrate the creativity encouraged within the core implementation principles.

Comment 8: 

Row 4: reference to ‘sports’ here indicates children could choose different sports? Could they? If so, who chose? The risk here is that the ‘sporty’ children dominate? Indeed, particular ‘popular’ sports are most likely to be selected? Or is a child referring to an individual sport here: could they be playing tennis off a wall for example? It is difficult to understand the reference without the information sought above (a-g).

Response 8:

Thank you for these considered questions. Additional information regarding the implementation of The Daily Move, including Table 1 outlining the core principles, has been added to Section 2.3 to better support the reader’s understanding of the initiative.

Comment 9: 

Row 5: this seems a somewhat weak argument: going outside will always provide ‘fresh air’…could an argument be made that movement outside was the key to the enjoyment…was there any evidence to suggest this providing a stronger argument? Children go out daily for playtime so highlight the difference if you can provide the evidence?

Response 9: 

Thank you for your feedback on this point. The reference to the impact of ‘fresh air’ is included to compliment the second half of the quoted statement that highlights how outdoor delivery of The Daily Move was perceived as more enjoyable than indoor delivery. This observation reinforces a core implementation principle of The Daily Move that outdoor delivery should be prioritised, provided children’s safety is not compromised.

Comment 10: 

Minor edits

Line 108/109 Should ‘and’ be inserted…are there two distinct aims?

Response 10:

Thank you. This section has been updated in the revised manuscript.

Comment 11:

Line 458 Refer here to DEY …there are education departments

Between primary schools and education departments across universities and colleges…clarity here is important.

Response 12:

Thank you for the suggestion. This section has been revised in response.

Comment 13:

Introduction

A well-written section with some very clear accounts of relevant literature. Explanation of the RE-AIM framework and its selection is a particular strength of the paper.

 Lines 89-91 might be addressed more clearly in the amendments to section 2.3 suggested above. Did the questionnaire target these elements?

Some reference to the link of the initiative to physical education and to social, personal and health education (SPHE) is important here. Particular contextual information related to (a) proposed increase in time allocation for both subjects (Primary Curriculum Framework, NCCA, 2023) as well as DEY (2025) Wellbeing Specification is significant.

Response 13:

Thank you for your feedback. The revised manuscript has been updated to reflect the link with PE and SPHE (Line 102-107)

Comment 14:

Methodology

Line 173: clarify ‘participants’ here refers to teachers only…children were also participants.

Response 14:

Thank you. This has been clarified in the revised manuscript.

Comment 15:

Results:

presentation of the results using the RE-AIM framework is excellent. Discussion might refer more explicitly to some of the challenges reported in this section. It is very appropriate that the ‘final sample’ i.e. those who ‘lasted the course’ are the voices represented in the data. Note comment above on ‘why attrition’ to this level? (acknowledging that this can be a feature of any longer-term initiatives in particular)

Response 15:

Thank you for this constructive feedback. An explicit examination of the attrition rate is presented in the revised manuscript.

Comment 16:

Discussion

This section is broad ranging and insightful. I recommend reviewing this and including some signposting in the initial paragraph: what aspects are you going to discuss…it is a long section. Readers will benefit from a little more guidance as they embark on reading this. Consider a sub-heading or two?

Comment 16:

Discussion

This section is broad ranging and insightful. I recommend reviewing this and including some signposting in the initial paragraph: what aspects are you going to discuss…it is a long section. Readers will benefit from a little more guidance as they embark on reading this. Consider a sub-heading or two?

Response 16:

Thank you for this measured suggestion. The opening paragraph of the Discussion in the revised manuscript has been amended to more clearly signpost the sections to follow (Line 472-478).

Comment 17:

Conclusions.

This section needs further deliberation and amendment. Since 2023 in Ireland, time allocation in the primary school day has been signposted. There is an allocation of ‘flexible’ time and an emphasis on teacher and school ‘agency’. This is an important consideration: how might this be used to sustain a PA initiative…although it needs to be linked to learning outcomes. The argument for ‘increased curriculum time’ for initiatives seems strange as well as unrealistic. Arguably, curriculum design is not founded on support for initiatives. Rather, how could the ‘sustainable’ work that you have proposed be embedded in the school day…in everyday practice…rather than as an ‘initiative’. There are key messages here that authors might consider and draw some stronger and somewhat more realistic conclusions? If section 2.3 can be clarified the conclusion about the nature of the TDMo will be very helpful for practitioners, teacher educators and others interested in promoting movement/PA throughout the school day. This clarification could be highlighted in the conclusions.

Response 17:

Thank you for your constructive feedback. The Conclusion of the revised manuscript has been amended to emphasise the importance of teachers’ using the flexible time allocation outlined within the Primary Curriculum Framework to support the implementation and sustainability of TDMo.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Evaluation

The paper is generally well-written, characterized by a high standard of English and a clear, logical progression of ideas. The authors provide a strong rationale for the initiative and have successfully utilized a mixed-methods approach to capture both teacher perceptions and longitudinal implementation trends.

However, while the study is robust, minor revisions are required to strengthen the manuscript. 

Specific Comments

Abstract

• In the opening sentence (lines 11-12), the authors include a citation. It is standard editorial practice to avoid citations in an abstract to ensure it remains a standalone summary. I suggest revising this to something like, e.g., "The Daily Move (TDMo) is a modified version of The Daily Mile, a physical activity initiative in Ireland, that provides children greater choice in activities during participation."
• Line 12 states that N=60 teachers implemented the program. However, the Results clarify that the final analysis was based on n=28 participants who completed all four timepoints. The abstract should explicitly state both the initial recruitment number and the final sample size to maintain transparency regarding the study's reach and the robustness of the longitudinal findings.

Introduction

• In lines 50–73, the authors provide a comprehensive overview of TDM. However, the manuscript would benefit from a more explicit statement regarding the intended relationship between TDM and TDMo. Is TDMo proposed as a permanent replacement, or is it a supplemental framework to be used only when barriers (like weather or boredom) arise? Clarifying whether this is a hybrid model or a full transition would help contextualize the "Maintenance" and "Sustainability" goals.
• The description of the RE-AIM framework (lines 97–105) is quite detailed and disrupts the narrative flow. I recommend condensing this into a single sentence explaining the choice of framework and moving the specific definitions of the five elements to the Materials and Methods section.

Materials and Methods

• In Section 2.4, the authors acknowledge that the T1–T4 questionnaires were self-developed. While a piloting process is described, the manuscript would be strengthened by a more detailed discussion of the content validity of these instruments. Additionally, as these tools are non-standardized, providing the full list of questionnaire items (e.g., as a Supplementary File) is essential for replicability.
• The study experienced a significant attrition rate (from N=60 to n=28). The high number of participants who "did not respond when contacted" suggests a potential self-selection bias. It is possible that only the most motivated or "successful" implementers remained. The authors should discuss how this attrition might limit the generalizability of the findings.

Results

To enhance interpretability, please incorporate statistical indicators directly into the figures (specifically Figures 2, 4, and 5):

• P-values: Use standard notation (e.g., * p < 0.05, ** for p < 0.01) directly on the bars or in the figure legends to highlight significant changes between timepoints.
• Effect Sizes: The manuscript would be significantly strengthened by the inclusion of effect sizes.
• If statistics are currently only available in the Supplementary Files, moving the most impactful values to the main text/figures ensures they are front-and-center for the reader.
• Figure 1: In the flowchart, a vertical line appears to contain a typo in "Physical fitness."
• Section 3.1 focuses on "perceived" impact. To provide a more objective evaluation, please include a brief summary of actual participation rates (average days per week). Linking perceived effectiveness to the actual "dose" of activity received would strengthen the conclusions.
• Figure 3 indicates that "Other" activities were ranked as highly enjoyable. The text should specify what these entailed.

Discussion

• The authors highlight "choice" as a key driver of enjoyment. It would be valuable to link this to Self-Determination Theory. Discussing how TDMo supports a child’s need for autonomy would provide a stronger theoretical foundation for why this version may be more sustainable.
• The Discussion provides limited insight into how frequently indoor resources were actually utilized. Did the indoor options successfully prevent the "seasonal drop-off" in physical activity typically seen in Irish schools?
• Comparing these RE-AIM findings with other international school-based interventions would clarify if the challenges faced (e.g., curriculum demands) are unique to the Irish context or part of a broader global trend.

Strengths and Limitations

• The results regarding long-term maintenance (96.2%) are likely skewed because they only include the most motivated implementers. The 53% of teachers who dropped out may have faced insurmountable barriers that are now missing from the final data. This should be explicitly acknowledged.
• "Effectiveness" is measured solely through teacher perception. The lack of objective, independent measurements (e.g., accelerometry or fitness tests) to verify these perceived improvements should be noted as a limitation.
• The child focus groups were held under the supervision of their class teacher. The presence of an authority figure may have introduced social desirability bias, potentially preventing children from sharing negative feedback.

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough and constructive review of our manuscript. The revisions made in response to your feedback have substantially strengthened the quality and clarity of this resubmission.

Abstract

Comment 1: 

In the opening sentence (lines 11-12), the authors include a citation. It is standard editorial practice to avoid citations in an abstract to ensure it remains a standalone summary. I suggest revising this to something like, e.g., "The Daily Move (TDMo) is a modified version of The Daily Mile, a physical activity initiative in Ireland, that provides children greater choice in activities during participation."

Response 1:

Thank you for your feedback. The citation has subsequently been removed, and the sentence amended.

Comment 2:

Line 12 states that N=60 teachers implemented the program. However, the Results clarify that the final analysis was based on n=28 participants who completed all four timepoints. The abstract should explicitly state both the initial recruitment number and the final sample size to maintain transparency regarding the study's reach and the robustness of the longitudinal findings

Response 2:

Thank you for your comment. The Abstract has been updated to reflect the number of participants recruited before the start of the study, while also explicitly outlining the datasets that were included in the final analysis.

Introduction

Comment 1:

In lines 50–73, the authors provide a comprehensive overview of TDM. However, the manuscript would benefit from a more explicit statement regarding the intended relationship between TDM and TDMo. Is TDMo proposed as a permanent replacement, or is it a supplemental framework to be used only when barriers (like weather or boredom) arise? Clarifying whether this is a hybrid model or a full transition would help contextualize the "Maintenance" and "Sustainability" goals.

Response 1:

Thank you for this considered observation. An explicit statement outlining the purpose of TDMo has been added to the revised manuscript (Line 69-72)

Comment 2:

The description of the RE-AIM framework (lines 97–105) is quite detailed and disrupts the narrative flow. I recommend condensing this into a single sentence explaining the choice of framework and moving the specific definitions of the five elements to the Materials and Methods section.

Response 2:

Thank you for this thoughtful recommendation. However, we feel it is important to retain a brief description a description of the RE-AIM framework within the Introduction to support readers understanding of its role in the evaluation of public health interventions. This contextual overview provides a necessary background for the subsequent section, which outline how RE-AIM has been used in previous studies. The Materials and Methods sections then presents a more specific account of how this study utilised the common elements of the RE-AIM framework.

Materials and Methods

Comment 1:

In Section 2.4, the authors acknowledge that the T1–T4 questionnaires were self-developed. While a piloting process is described, the manuscript would be strengthened by a more detailed discussion of the content validity of these instruments. Additionally, as these tools are non-standardized, providing the full list of questionnaire items (e.g., as a Supplementary File) is essential for replicability.

Response 1:

Thank you for your constructive feedback. The revised manuscript now includes a more explicit discussion of the content validity of the T1-T4 questionnaires. Copies of the questionnaires have also been included in the Supplementary File (i.e., Questionnaire S1-S4) to support the replicability of methods.

Comment 2:

The study experienced a significant attrition rate (from N=60 to n=28). The high number of participants who "did not respond when contacted" suggests a potential self-selection bias. It is possible that only the most motivated or "successful" implementers remained. The authors should discuss how this attrition might limit the generalizability of the findings.

Response 2:

Thank you for this considered observation. The potential impact that the attrition rate had on the findings is now presented in the Discussion section of the revised manuscript.

Results:

Comment 1:

To enhance interpretability, please incorporate statistical indicators directly into the figures (specifically Figures 2, 4, and 5):

P-values: Use standard notation (e.g., * p < 0.05, ** for p < 0.01) directly on the bars or in the figure legends to highlight significant changes between timepoints.

Response 1:

Thank you for this suggestion. The legends of Figures 2, 4, and 5 have been revised in response.

Comment 2:

Effect Sizes: The manuscript would be significantly strengthened by the inclusion of effect sizes.

Response 2:

Thank you for this considered observation. Some effect sizes are included in both the revised manuscript and supplementary file.

Comment 3:

If statistics are currently only available in the Supplementary Files, moving the most impactful values to the main text/figures ensures they are front-and-center for the reader.

Response 3:

Thank you for your feedback. The most impactful values are included in main text and legends of figures in the revised manuscript.

Comment 4:

Figure 1: In the flowchart, a vertical line appears to contain a typo in "Physical fitness."

Response 4:

Thank you for this observation. This typo has been fixed in the revised submission.

Comment 5:

Section 3.1 focuses on "perceived" impact. To provide a more objective evaluation, please include a brief summary of actual participation rates (average days per week). Linking perceived effectiveness to the actual "dose" of activity received would strengthen the conclusions.

Response 5:

Thank you for this measured recommendation. A brief summary of the reported average number of days TDMo was implemented has been added to the revised manuscript (Line 389-394.

Comment 6:

Figure 3 indicates that "Other" activities were ranked as highly enjoyable. The text should specify what these entailed

Response 6:

Thank you for this important feedback. The revised manuscript now specifies the types of activities that were specified most frequently when ‘other’ was selected (Line 397-399)

Discussion

Comment 1:

The authors highlight "choice" as a key driver of enjoyment. It would be valuable to link this to Self-Determination Theory. Discussing how TDMo supports a child’s need for autonomy would provide a stronger theoretical foundation for why this version may be more sustainable.

Response 1:

Thank you for this considered suggestion. The Discussion section of the revised manuscript now explicitly links TDMo to Self-Determination Theory, with particular emphasis on the need for autonomy (Line 518-520).

Comment 2:

The Discussion provides limited insight into how frequently indoor resources were actually utilized. Did the indoor options successfully prevent the "seasonal drop-off" in physical activity typically seen in Irish schools?

Response 2:

Thank you for this important feedback. The frequency of indoor implementation and its potential role in mitigating seasonal decline in physical activity were not specific aims of this research study. As result, a detailed comparative analysis of indoor and outdoor delivery was not undertaken. Although teachers were encouraged to implement TDMo indoors if outdoor delivery was not feasible, outdoor implementation was prioritised within the 8 core implementation principles. As such, this study was focused on evaluating overall teacher-led implementation and sustainability of TDMo. However, we do acknowledge that the possibility of indoor delivery mitigating seasonal drop-offs warrants further investigation and have now noted it as a limitation and recommendation for future research (Line 650-653).

Comment 3:

Comparing these RE-AIM findings with other international school-based interventions would clarify if the challenges faced (e.g., curriculum demands) are unique to the Irish context or part of a broader global trend

Response 3:

Thank you for your suggestion. The revised manuscript now includes a comparison with the reported implementation challenges of school-based physical activity interventions (Line 554-557).

Strengths and Limitations

Comment 1:

The results regarding long-term maintenance (96.2%) are likely skewed because they only include the most motivated implementers. The 53% of teachers who dropped out may have faced insurmountable barriers that are now missing from the final data. This should be explicitly acknowledged.

Response 1:

Thank you for your feedback. The revised manuscript includes a more explicit reference to the impact of the attrition rate in the Limitations section.

Comment 2:
Effectiveness" is measured solely through teacher perception. The lack of objective, independent measurements (e.g., accelerometry or fitness tests) to verify these perceived improvements should be noted as a limitation.

Response 2:

Thank you for this observation. The manuscript has been revised in response (Line 656-658).

Comment 3:

The child focus groups were held under the supervision of their class teacher. The presence of an authority figure may have introduced social desirability bias, potentially preventing children from sharing negative feedback.

Response 3:

Thank you. This has been included as a limitation in the revised manuscript (Line 658-660).

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract is properly constructed

1. Introduction
The TDMo is well explained, but the analysis of previous studies on the RE-AIM framework discussed in this study is omitted. In lines 105-107, some [16.30-32] are explained, but please add how RE-AIM was studied in previous studies 
And research hypothesis according to the purpose of the research? Please clearly present the research question. The content presented in lines 110-113 is too brief.
Also, please further mention the need for research on why it should be targeted at elementary school students. There are middle and high school students and toddlers, so why should we choose elementary school students?

2. Method of research 

Please explain the program in more detail how you applied TDMo. And if photos related to the application are attached, the reliability of the study will be much higher

The data collection part was specifically well written, but the part in which 6 students were randomly selected and participated in the focus interview is not understood. In the case of qualitative research, the key is to select research participants who match the research. Please additionally supplement the reason for the random selection and the explanation accordingly. 

In the case of mixed research, the reliability and truthfulness of the data reviewing the data analysis results of the qualitative research should be included in the research method. For now, it only suggests that NVivo was used one ᅟ to derive the results. Please add truth and reliability to this part

3. the results of the study

When presenting research results, most of the results are explained only by the survey results, and the keywords and notes presented through the qualitative research method are not presented. Please present them in the result statement as well. From 3.1 to 3.4

4. discussion

The discussion was well developed by properly comparing the results of the previous study with the results of this study. In addition, suggestions for future follow-up studies were also well made by presenting the strengths and limitations of the study.

Overall opinion: Overall, the study design was well designed and meaningful results were produced. However, if a few points are added, it is expected to be enjoyed by many readers as a high-quality study.

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough and constructive review of our manuscript. The revisions made in response to your feedback have substantially strengthened the quality and clarity of this resubmission.

Comment 1:

1. Introduction
   The TDMo is well explained, but the analysis of previous studies on the RE-AIM framework discussed in this study is omitted. In lines 105-107, some [16.30-32] are explained, but please add how RE-AIM was studied in previous studies 
   And research hypothesis according to the purpose of the research? Please clearly present the research question. The content presented in lines 110-113 is too brief.
   Also, please further mention the need for research on why it should be targeted at elementary school students. There are middle and high school students and toddlers, so why should we choose elementary school students?

Response 1:

Thank you for your constructive feedback. In response, a more detailed description of how RE-AIM has been applied in previous studies has been added to the revised manuscript (Lines 122-137. The overarching research question and corresponding hypothesis have also been added (Line 143-149). Additionally, the rationale for conducting this research has been further emphasised to clarify its significance (Lines 138-142).

Comment 2:

2. Method of research 

Please explain the program in more detail how you applied TDMo. And if photos related to the application are attached, the reliability of the study will be much higher

Response 2:

Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion. Table 1 in the revised document outlines the core principles of The Daily Move that guided teachers’ delivery of the initiative. Further information regarding how the initiative was implemented has also been included in Section 2.3 TDMo Implementation.

Comment 3:

The data collection part was specifically well written, but the part in which 6 students were randomly selected and participated in the focus interview is not understood. In the case of qualitative research, the key is to select research participants who match the research. Please additionally supplement the reason for the random selection and the explanation accordingly. 

Response 3:

Thank you for your feedback. Lines 284-306 have been amended to clarify the format and structure of the child focus group and the rationale for using random selection method has also been added (Line 286-287).

Comment 4:

In the case of mixed research, the reliability and truthfulness of the data reviewing the data analysis results of the qualitative research should be included in the research method. For now, it only suggests that NVivo was used one to derive the results. Please add truth and reliability to this part

Response 4:

Thank you for your considered observation. The manuscript has been revised in response (Line 342-344).

Comment 5:

3. the results of the study

When presenting research results, most of the results are explained only by the survey results, and the keywords and notes presented through the qualitative research method are not presented. Please present them in the result statement as well. From 3.1 to 3.4

Response 5:

Thank you for this measured feedback. A summary of the qualitative content has been included in the introductory statement of the results (Line 343-346). Within each sub-section, quantitative findings from the questionnaires are presented first to provide a clear overview of the measured outcomes. Qualitative data from the focus groups are then provided in the tables at the end of the section to ensure consistency. The purpose is to allow the emerging themes and supporting quotes to add greater depth and context to the quantitative findings.