A real-world feasibility study of the PLAYshop: a brief intervention to facilitate parent engagement in developing their child’s physical literacy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Development of physical literacy, defined as "the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge and understanding to value and take responsibility for engagement in physical activities for life," can support children's physically active behaviors and consequent health benefits. Little research has explored interventions to improve children's physical literacy, although substantive evidence shows parents play a key role in children's physically active behaviors and development of fundamental movement skills. The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility of a novel, physical literacy program (the PLAYshop) designed to build parents' self-efficacy to support their child's physical literacy. METHODS: A non-randomized, one-arm concurrent nested design was used. Thirty-five parents of young children (3-8 years of age) attended a 75-min workshop inclusive of interactive activities, educational messages, and the provision of resources focused on core physical literacy concepts. Pre- and post-workshop surveys used quantitative measures to assess parents' satisfaction, knowledge, confidence, and intention to adopt practices. Follow-up interviews qualitatively explored the implementation experiences of both parents and facilitators. Paired t tests and thematic analysis were undertaken. RESULTS: Of the 33 eligible parents, 23 completed both pre- and post-workshop surveys. Follow-up interviews were completed with 11 parents and four workshop facilitators. Parents' self-reported knowledge and confidence to support their child's physical literacy development significantly increased after PLAYshop participation. The majority of parents were satisfied with the workshop and motivated to apply learnings at home with their child. Workshop facilitators identified seven workshop strengths (e.g., workshop champions and skilled facilitators) and four challenges (e.g., recruitment and unfavorable spaces). Limitations include the lack of control group and recruitment challenges. CONCLUSIONS: The PLAYshop was perceived positively by parents and facilitators and appeared to improve parent self-efficacy and intention to promote physical literacy with their child. Recruitment and attendance were key implementation challenges. The findings from this real-world study support the preliminary feasibility of the PLAYshop intervention and highlight areas to improve the intervention and recruitment prior to efficacy testing in a more rigorous trial format.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».