Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Children and Youth: Exploring the perceptions of stakeholders regarding their acceptability, barriers to uptake, and dissemination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Engaging stakeholders in the development of guidelines and plans for implementation is vital. The purpose of this study was to examine stakeholders' (parents, teachers, exercise professionals, paediatricians, and youth) perceptions of the Canadian 24-Hour Movement Behaviour Guidelines for Children and Youth ("Movement Guidelines"). Stakeholders (n = 104) engaged in semi-structured focus groups or interviews to discuss the perceived acceptability of the guidelines, potential barriers to implementation, and preferred methods and messengers of dissemination. A thematic analysis was conducted. Overall, there was consistent support across all stakeholder groups, with the exception of youth participants, for the Movement Guidelines. Stakeholders identified a range of barriers to the uptake of the guidelines including concerns with accurately defining key terms such as "recreational" screen time; everyday challenges such as financial and time constraints; and the possibility of the Movement Guidelines becoming just another source of stress and guilt for already busy and overwhelmed parents. Participants identified a range of recommended methods and messengers for future dissemination. School and medical settings were the most commonly recommended settings through which dissemination efforts should be delivered. Overall, participants representing a range of stakeholder groups were receptive to the new Movement Guidelines and endorsed their value. In complementing the Movement Guidelines, messaging and resources will need to be developed that address common concerns participants had regarding their dissemination and implementation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".