Associations between showering behaviours following physical education, physical activity and fitness in English schoolchildren
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aimed to describe the frequency of showering after physical education (PE) in English high-school pupils. We examined differences in physical activity (PA) and cardiorespiratory fitness according to showering behaviours and examined predictors of showering. We measured PA and cardiorespiratory fitness of n = 3921 pupils (11-16 years, 53.5% males) from eight high schools. Pupils self-reported showering behaviour and parental PA levels. We calculated deprivation and distance travelled to school from their home postcode. Overall, 53% of boys and 68% of girls said they never shower after PE. Pupils who did not shower after PE were less physically active and engaged in fewer team sports. Girls who did not shower also had lower cardiorespiratory fitness than those who did. Showering behaviour varied greatly by school, so we adjusted for clustering at the school level. Pupils were more likely to shower if they were active with their parents [odds ratio (OR) = 1.72; 95% CI: 1.43, 2.07] and less likely to shower if they were from deprived areas (OR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.52, 0.88). Showering after PE is relatively rare in English schoolchildren, particularly girls. While we cannot infer causality regarding the relationships found here, the low rates of showering and the lower PA and cardiorespiratory fitness (in girls) observed in schoolchildren who do not shower suggest research is needed to determine whether showering is a barrier to being physically active during PE.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".