Parents’ experiences of family-based physical activity interventions: a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Children and adolescents are at increased risk of adverse health consequences linked to physical inactivity. Parental support is positively correlated with children and adolescents' physical activity (PA) levels. As a result, family-based interventions are acknowledged as an effective strategy for enhancing PA among this cohort. However, the effects of these interventions on child and adolescent PA are often inconsistent, with calls for more in-depth understanding of the contextual issues related to intervention implementation and parents' experiences of interventions. The purpose of this review was to appraise and synthesize qualitative research regarding parents' experiences of family-based PA interventions. METHODS: Seven databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SportDiscus, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, and ProQuest) were searched for studies published from inception to January 2024 that included qualitative evaluative data of parents' experiences of family-based PA interventions. The research quality of included studies was appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Qualitative data were extracted and thematically synthesized. RESULTS: A total of 7,770 articles were screened, of which 82 independent studies were included in the final synthesis. Three analytic themes were generated. (1) The reasons why parents enrolled in family-based interventions and the perceived benefits for parents, children, and families; (2) Parents' perspectives on intervention components, including their satisfaction, coherence, and suggestions for improvement; (3) The social and environmental factors shaping parents' intervention experiences and parental PA support. Findings show the benefits of PA, being a good role model and spending time together as motives for enrollment. Parents perceived child or adolescent's PA confidence and overall well-being and family functioning improved. Parents presented mixed views about planning, goal setting, self-monitoring, intervention materials and resources, and delivery. Child or adolescents' interest, social connections, financial constraints and availability of resources impacted parental engagement. CONCLUSIONS: This novel and comprehensive review offers practical recommendations to guide intervention development and inform future policy and practice such as: consider using co-design methods and social network analysis; promoting the benefits of PA on family functioning during recruitment; strengthening parents PA support identities; provide opportunities for social support for families post-intervention and educate coaches to create an environment of inclusivity and enjoyment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023421539.
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 | 0,043 | 0,096 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,016 | 0,015 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 ».