MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2584436518 · doi:10.1093/her/cyw053

Factors influencing implementation of a preschool-based physical activity intervention

2016· article· en· W2584436518 on OpenAlexaff
Erica Y. Lau, Ruth P. Saunders, Michael W. Beets, Bo Cai, Russell R. Pate

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Education Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of South Carolina
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)ChecklistPsychologyPreschool educationPhysical activityComponent (thermodynamics)Applied psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Examining factors that influence implementation of key program components that underlie an intervention’s success provides important information to inform the development of effective dissemination strategies. We examined direct and indirect effects of preschool capacity, quality of prevention support system and teacher characteristics on implementation levels of a component, called Move Outside (i.e., preschool classroom teachers to provide at least 40 min of outdoor recess per day), that was fundamental to the success of a preschool-based physical activity intervention. Level of implementation, defined as the percent of daily goal met for the Move Outside component, was assessed via direct observation. Items assessing preschool capacity, quality of prevention support system and teacher characteristics were selected from surveys and an environmental checklist completed by preschool directors and teachers. Preschool classroom was used as the unit of analysis (Year 1: n = 19; Year 2: n = 17). Results from Bayesian path analyses showed that the three factors were not significantly associated with level of implementation in Year 1, but preschool capacity was directly associated with level of implementation in Year 2 (β= 0.528, 95% CI: 0.134, 0.827). The current findings suggest that factors that influence level of implementation appear to differ as an intervention evolved over time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.230
GPT teacher head0.611
Teacher spread0.381 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Education ResearchSame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207