What do we know about<i>how</i>to promote physical activity to adolescents? A mapping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date, adolescent physical activity (PA) intervention research has focused on the school setting and suggests a need to extend interventions beyond this setting to influence teenagers' overall level of PA. But, the relative effectiveness of PA promotion strategies that can be part of such multi-setting interventions remains unknown. We completed a mapping review of PA intervention research that focused on increasing adolescents' level of PA to describe the sum of what has been learned in this area and to expose research and knowledge gaps. We searched data bases from 1993 to September 2014, included PA promotion intervention studies targeting 12- to 17-year-old youth and assessing changes in their level of PA, and used ecological and capacity building frameworks to review this research. The 46 included studies suggest that little is known about strategies targeting the interpersonal, organizational, community or policy levels of teenagers' PA behavior influences; our current knowledge remains concentrated in the intrapersonal domain and the school setting. We suggest avenues for researchers as well as practitioners who design and implement adolescent PA programs such that we further develop our research and practice knowledge base and develop programs to positively impact adolescents' PA behavior.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".