Longitudinal associations of parental and peer influences with physical activity during adolescence: findings from the COMPASS study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To examine temporal variations in parental and peer influences on adolescent physical activity (PA) and whether these variations predicted changes in PA. METHODS: We analyzed data from Years 1, 2 and 3 of the COMPASS study. Participants were 22 909 students in Grades 9 to 12 (mean age [years] = 15.42 ± 1.12, 46% boys, 85% White), who had completed the following survey items on 2 or more consecutive occasions: age, sex, grade, race/ethnicity, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), parental encouragement and parental instrumental support for PA, and number of active peers. We used a linear-mixed model to investigate longitudinal effects of parental and peer influences on changes in square-root transformed average MVPA. We used a generalized-estimating-equations (GEE) model to investigate compliance with Canadian PA guidelines for youth. These models included parental encouragement, instrumental support and number of active peers as time-varying predictors, adjusting for sociodemog raphic factors and grade as covariates, and accounting for the clustering within children and schools. RESULTS: We found that adolescents perceived significantly less parental encouragement and instrumental support and reported fewer active peers as they got older. In addition, the adjusted models suggest that, for a one-unit increase in the score of parental encouragement, parental instrumental support and number of active peers, average MVPA significantly increased by 0.22 units, 0.23 units and 0.16 units, respectively. For the same one-unit increase, adjusted odds of an adolescent complying with the PA guidelines increased by 9%, 4% and 6%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Promoting parental support and facilitating the formation and maintenance of a physically active friendship network may play an important role in attenuating declines in PA during adolescence.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".