Promoting Parent and Child Physical Activity Together: Elicitation of Potential Intervention Targets and Preferences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Promoting physical activities that involve both parents and their children would be very useful to the improved health and well-being of families, yet coactivity interventions have been particularly unsuccessful in past research. The purpose of this study was to elicit the salient parental beliefs about coactivity framed through theory of planned behavior in order to inform future intervention content. A representative sample of Canadian parents ( N = 483) with children aged 6 to 14 years completed belief elicitation measures of theory of planned behavior, as well as coactivity and program preferences. Analyses included content theming by physical activity belief and preference through tallies of the percentages of parents endorsing each belief. Exploratory analyses of differences in endorsed themes were conducted by parent (mother, father), age of child (6-10 years, 11-14 years), and sex of the child. The results showed that behavioral beliefs about health, interpersonal and educational/learning opportunities and control beliefs about lack of time, various incompatible parent/child factors, parental health, and bad weather were dominant themes. Most of these themes did not vary in endorsement by parent and child characteristics. By contrast, preferences for various activities varied by parent and child characteristics, yet parents overwhelmingly desired the activities to be outdoors, close to home, after work, and originally delivered from community health professionals via Internet or face-to face means. Overall, the findings provide several considerations for specific targets to improve future physical activity intervention approaches among parents and their children.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".