Systematic review of the relationship between childcare educators' practices and preschoolers' physical activity and eating behaviours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of childcare educators is important given that 81% of preschoolers living in developed countries receive childcare outside their home. Since children learn by observing and imitating others, childcare educators may play a role in promoting healthy eating behaviours and physical activity in young children. Six databases were searched for quantitative peer-reviewed, English or French primary studies reporting the correlates, predictors or effectiveness of childcare educators' practices on preschoolers' healthy eating and physical activity behaviours. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. Fifteen articles were included in this review: 10 measured physical activity levels and five assessed eating behaviours. The quality score was rated as low for eight of these articles, and as moderate for the remaining seven. Two of four cross-sectional studies reported a positive relationship between educators and children's behaviours. Eleven intervention studies reported significant favourable effects of interventions. Educators may play a positive role in promoting healthy behaviours in children, but this is mainly based on a small number of intervention type studies of low or moderate quality. The influence of specific components of educators' practices on children's healthy eating and physical activity behaviours remains inconclusive.
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 | 0.008 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".