Cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between parental support and children's physical activity in the early years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Examine the cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between parental support and children's physical activity outside of child care, and whether children's age or sex moderated the associations. Method: Results are based on 93 children aged 19-60 months at baseline from eight child care centers across Alberta, Canada. Parental support (i.e., transportation, co-activity, watching, encouragement, and informing) and children's physical activity outside of child care were measured with a parental questionnaire at baseline (October/November, 2013) and follow-up (May/June, 2014). Linear mixed-models that accounted for children being nested in child care centers and that adjusted for children's sex, children's age, parental education, parental immigration status, temperature, and precipitation were conducted. Results: Every additional unit increase in parental support was significantly associated with 48.5 minutes/week (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 29.3, 67.6) and 52.2 (95% CI: 32.0, 72.3) minutes/week higher parental reported children's physical activity outside of child care at baseline and follow-up, respectively. Children's age was found to be a moderator at baseline only, with associations slightly stronger is toddlers (AŸ = 60.4; 95% CI: 32.2, 88.6) compared to preschoolers (AŸ = 45.9; 95% CI: 18.5, 73.4). A 1-unit increase in parental support from baseline to follow-up was significantly associated with a 24.8 (95% CI: 2.8, 46.8) minutes/week increase in parental reported children's physical activity outside of child care. Conclusion: Parental support was positively associated with children's physical activity across all analyses. Parental support may be an important correlate to target in future interventions aiming to promote physical activity in the early years.Acknowledgments: This research was funded by the Alberta Centre for Child, Family, and Community Research (ACCFCR).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".