Parents’ Perceptions of Children’s and Adolescents’ Use of Electronic Devices to Promote Physical Activity: Systematic Review of Qualitative Evidence
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The use of physical activity (PA) electronic devices offers a unique opportunity to engage children and adolescents in PA. For this age group (2-17 years), parents play a key role in promoting healthy lifestyles and regulating the use of electronic devices. Therefore, parents' perceptions of the use of electronic devices for PA in children and adolescents are critical for efficient intervention. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this qualitative systematic review was to improve the understanding of parents' perceptions of the use of electronic devices for PA in children and adolescents. METHODS: A systematic search of electronic databases (Medline/PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, Scopus, OpenGrey, and Deep Blue) was conducted. Studies from inception (2010) to May 2022 were identified. Qualitative studies on the perceptions of healthy children's and adolescents' (aged 2-17 years) parents regarding PA interventions performed on electronic devices were included according to the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group Guidance Series and the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research (ENTREQ) statement. The Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument was used for methodological validity. RESULTS: In total, 18 studies with 410 parents, mostly mothers, were included. Parents' perceptions were grouped into 4 categories: usefulness, advantages, general perceptions (electronic devices for health promotion, preferences for real-life PA, and concerns), and acceptability (barriers and facilitators) of electronic devices for PA. Parents perceived electronic devices as useful for increasing PA, learning new skills, and increasing motivation for PA and valued those devices that promoted socialization and family and peer bonding. In terms of general perceptions, parents had positive attitudes toward PA electronic devices; however, they preferred outdoor and real-life PA, especially for preschoolers and children. Concerns, such as physical and psychological harm, addiction, conflicts, and compliance difficulties, were found. Facilitators were identified as ease of use, appropriate feedback, promotion of socialization, and motivational strategies, such as rewards, challenges, and attractiveness. Barriers, such as discomfort, price, and difficulties in using or understanding electronic devices, were also identified. For older children and adolescents, parents were more concerned about high levels of screen time and setting limits on electronic devices and therefore preferred PA electronic devices rather than traditional ones. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the participants had positive attitudes toward electronic devices for PA and perceived them as an effective way to promote PA in children and adolescents. They also perceived several benefits of using electronic devices, such as health promotion, increased awareness and motivation, and socialization, as well as barriers, facilitators, and age differences. The results of this study could provide researchers with insights into designing more effective, age-appropriate PA electronic devices for children and adolescents and improving adherence to their use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021292340; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=292340.
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 | 0,037 | 0,100 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,012 | 0,012 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| 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 ».