Preschoolers’ health-related quality of life following the implementation of a childcare physical activity intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Being active offers many physical and emotional benefits contributing to a higher health-related quality of life (HRQoL); however, this relationship remains unexplored among preschoolers (aged 2.5-5 years). This study examined the impact of the Supporting Physical Activity in the Childcare Environment (SPACE), which was an intervention implemented using a cluster randomized controlled trial on preschoolers' HRQoL. Childcare centres were randomly allocated to the experimental (n = 11) or control (n = 11) conditions, and preschoolers' HRQoL was measured using the parent-report Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory 4.0 (3 subscales: physical, psychosocial, and total HRQoL) at baseline, post-intervention (i.e., week 8), and 6- and 12-month follow-up. A linear mixed-effects model was used to determine if preschoolers in the experimental condition displayed an increased HRQoL post-intervention and at follow-up compared with preschoolers in the control condition. Preschoolers (n = 234) with HRQoL data at baseline and one additional time-point were retained for analyses. Body mass index was not found to impact significantly on the intervention, and no statistically significant interaction effects were found for any of the 3 HRQoL variables. In conclusion, the SPACE intervention had no impact on preschoolers' HRQoL. Given the scarcity of research in this population, additional exploration is necessary to better understand the potential impact of physical activity participation on preschoolers' HRQoL.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".