A real world feasibility trial of the PLAYshop: a brief intervention to facilitate parent engagement in developing their child’s physical literacy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
<title>Abstract</title> <bold>Background: </bold>Development of physical literacy, defined as <italic>“the motivation, confidence, physical competence, knowledge and understanding to value and take responsibility for engagement in physical activities for life”, </italic>can<italic> </italic>support children’s physically active behaviors and consequent health benefits. Little research exploring interventions to improve children's physical literacy exist, 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 is to explore a novel, physical literacy intervention designed to assist parents to engage with their child in purposeful play; play that facilitates the development of physical literacy. <bold>Methods: </bold>The PLAYshop was a 75-minute workshop to build parents' self-efficacy to support their child’s physical literacy through interactive activities and educational messages as well as educational resources focused on core physical literacy concepts. We collected quantitative pre- and post-workshop surveys of parents’ satisfaction, knowledge, confidence and intention to adopt practices as well as qualitative follow-up implementation focused interviews from both parents and facilitators. We used paired t-tests to examine changes in parents' self-reported physical literacy knowledge and confidence and thematic analysis of interviews to explore workshop feasibility.<bold>Results: </bold>Six workshops were delivered to 33 parents of young children (3-8 years of age). Twenty-three parents 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. Further, the majority of parents were satisfied with the workshop and motivated to apply workshop 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).<bold>Conclusions:</bold> 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 trial address an important evidence gap, highlighting areas for adaptations to improve the intervention and recruitment and suggesting that the PLAYshop is ready for efficacy testing in a more rigorous randomized controlled trial.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».