Associations between total physical activity levels and academic performance in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Physical activity has been associated with positive health-related outcomes. Physical inactivity, conversely, has been associated with several negative health outcomes. One topic that has been consistently examined is the relationship between physical activity and academic performance in children; however, studies that involve university-level students have not been aggregated to date. It is therefore the aim of this systematic review to examine the relationship between physical activity and academic performance in university-level students. This systematic review was conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and included any study published until September 2023 that examined associations between physical activity and any measure of academic performance. SPORTDiscus, ERIC, the British Education Index, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed were searched. A random effects meta-analysis was also undertaken, and risk bias was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. After screening, 36 studies were included, with six studies being included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis found a significant association between physical activity (high versus low) and academic performance (high versus low performers) (odds ratio = 3.04; 95% CI = 1.84-5.02; P ≤ 0.001; I 2 = 49.62). These results, however, were deemed to be of low credibility. The narrative analysis yielded mixed results, with 50% of studies reporting positive associations and the remaining studies reporting no significant associations. This trend did not differ depending on the subjective or objective measurement of physical activity. Although this review found meta-analytic significant associations between physical activity and academic performance, these results should be treated with caution, as the remaining studies yielded mixed results. Future studies should aim to focus on objective measurements of physical activity where possible to further explore this potential relationship.
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 | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».