P = 0.04), the shuttle run test ( b = 0.28; ci = 0.02:0.54; p = 0.03) and the sum of skinfolds ( =-0.08; ci=-0.11:-0.06; p = 0.01). subgroup analyses on the extent of student involvement showed mixed results. students at intervention schools where students involvement was more successful showed no altera- tions in physical activity levels and higher scores on shuttle run scores ( = 0.58;ci=0.29:0.87; p = 0.00) compared to controls. students at intervention schools that were less involved, showed higher scores on long jump ( = 7.77; ci = 4.78:10.76; p = 0.00), grip strength ( = 1.34; ci = 0.61:2.06; p = 0.00), and sum of skinfolds ( =-0.15; ci=-0.19:-0.10; p = 0.00). conclusions the participatory physical activity intervention in this study does not change physical activity level but does improve some elements of physical fitness. the research methods used in this study offers a protocol to align intervention plans to the students’ assets by co-creation which is feasible to use in the school context