Prevalence of Compliance with a New Physical Activity Guideline for Preschool-Age Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Four expert panels from Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States issued physical activity (PA) recommendations for young children that are quite similar. The aim of this study was to determine compliance with the new PA guideline (defined as ≥15 min/hr of total PA) in two independent samples of preschool children. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of children attending preschools in Columbia, South Carolina. A total of 286 children in one sample and 337 children in a second sample participated. The main outcome of interest was total PA (sum of light, moderate, and vigorous intensity activity) measured by accelerometry. Compliance with the PA guideline was determined for both samples. Separately for each sample, mixed logistic models were used to determine whether there were differences in compliance with the PA guideline between groups based on sex, race/ethnicity, parent education, and weight status, controlling for preschool. RESULTS: Total PA was 14.5 and 15.2 min/hr in the first and second samples, respectively. The prevalence of meeting the PA guideline was 41.6% and 50.2% in the first and second samples, respectively. In both samples, more males than females met the guideline (53.5% vs. 33.5% and 57.6% vs. 45.9%) in the first and second samples, respectively (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one half of children in two independent samples met the guideline for PA in young children. Policies and practices designed to increase PA among preschool children are needed, given that most children are not meeting this PA guideline.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".