Effects of Extra-curricular Physical Activity Programs on High-school Girls: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Most adolescents do not meet physical activity (PA) recommendations, especially girls. Physical inactivity has major physical and psychosocial deleterious effects on adolescents. Little is known about the effect of girl-only, extra-curricular PA programs designed for adolescents on physical and psychosocial outcomes. Hence, this systematic review assessed quantitative and qualitative studies evaluating the effects of such interventions. It also aimed at identifying recommendations to improve their implementation and efficacy. Methods Literature published until June 4, 2018, was searched in three electronic databases. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of studies presenting results on physical and psychosocial outcomes, not those presenting solely implementation recommendations. Results Seventeen quantitative and qualitative studies describing 10 different PA programs were included. Six of these studies provided recommendations for implementation only. The overall quality of the studies assessing the effects on physical and psychosocial outcomes was moderate, with an average score of 58%. The PA programs assessed did not lead to clear improvements in PA levels or other physical outcomes. Concerning psychosocial results, there is some evidence that the programs could improve dimensions of the self-esteem construct. Conclusion Future studies should assess the effect of girl-only, extra-curricular PA programs on the health-related habits, such as reduction of sedentary time among adolescents and sleep duration. More studies evaluating the psychosocial effects as a primary outcome are recommended to obtain a clearer understanding of the benefits. This review gathers recommendations to improve the efficacy of future extra-curricular PA programs designed to increase PA levels in girls.
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 | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".