Parents of Adolescents Perspectives of Physical Activity, Gaming and Virtual Reality: Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Virtual reality (VR) exergaming may be a promising avenue to engage adolescents with physical activity. Since parental support is a consistent determinant of physical activity in adolescents, it is crucial to gather the views of parents of adolescents about this type of intervention. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to interview parents of younger adolescents (13-17 years old) about physical activity, gaming, and VR as part of the larger vEngage study. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 18 parents of adolescents. Data were synthesized using framework analysis. RESULTS: Parents believed that encouraging physical activity in adolescents was important, particularly for mental health. Most parents felt that their children were not active enough. Parents reported their adolescents regularly gamed, with mostly negative perceptions of gaming due to violent content and becoming addicted. Parents discussed an inability to relate to gaming due to "generational differences," but an exception was exergaming, which they had played with their children in the past (eg, Wii Fit). Specific recommendations for promoting a VR exergaming intervention were provided, but ultimately parents strongly supported harnessing gaming for any positive purpose. CONCLUSIONS: The current study suggests promise for a VR exergaming intervention, but this must be framed in a way that addresses parental concerns, particularly around addiction, violence, and safety, without actively involving their participation. While parents would rather their children performed "real-world" physical activity, they believed the key to engagement was through technology. Overall, there was the perception that harnessing gaming and sedentary screen time for a positive purpose would be strongly supported.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".