Physical Activity Programs with Post-Intervention Follow-Up in Children: A Comprehensive Review According to Categories of Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Only 9% of Canadian children meet the National Guidelines of 60 min of daily moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity. The aim of this review is to assess the mid- and long-term effectiveness of physical activity interventions and their impact on cardiovascular risk factors in children. We assessed the success of interventions within three different categories: those using a behavioural and social approach, an informational approach or an environmental approach. The average number of children included in these studies was 860 (range of 30-5106); the age range was from 2 to 18 years; and the mean intervention duration was 1607 min (range of 12-8160 min). The length of follow-up post-intervention averaged 13 months (ranging from 0.25 to 96 months). A positive impact on physical activity was found in 74% and on any measured outcomes in 90% of the studies reviewed. However, the benefits of physical activity interventions decreased with longer follow-up. Regardless of the approaches, physical activity interventions improved cardiovascular risk factors. However, the challenge of any program is to maintain beneficial effects once the intervention is completed. These findings will inform the development of future intervention programs in order to optimize sustained cardiovascular benefits.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".