Barriers, strategies, and information seeking: Parents' support roles and perspectives of supporting children's physical activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parents are often considered "gate-keepers" and critical facilitators of children's physical activity (PA) participation. The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) suggests that the proximal determinant of behaviour is the intention to engage in the behaviour (Arjan, 1991). Parents' perceived behavioural control (PBC) is a key factor in determining the amount of support they provide for their children's PA (Rhodes et al., 2013) However, there is a paucity of research regarding a) specific barriers that limit parents' PBC and b) possible strategies to overcome such barriers. The purpose of this study was threefold; a) enhance the current understanding of parental support in relation to children's PA, b) identify specific barriers to parental support and possible intervention strategies, and c) identify parents' preferred sources of communication for information regarding children's PA. An adapted Theory of Planned Behaviour (Rhodes et al., 2013) and the Comprehensive Model of Information Seeking (CMIS; Johnson et al., 1995) provided frameworks to explore the objectives. Qualitative methodologies (i.e., focus groups) were employed to examine parents' experiences and needs for supporting their children's PA. Participants (n=21) included parents of at least one child (5 to 11 years). Preliminary findings suggest that cost, time, safety, and parent motivation are key barriers impacting PBC. Strategies included parental/family involvement and "community parenting" as potentially effective interventions. Responses were varied regarding preferred sources of information (e.g., other parents, doctor, media). This research provided some initial insights on barriers and strategies for parental support for PA which could be used to inform future TPB-based interventions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".