A scoping review of physical activity and screen time guidelines for use in Outside School Hours Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Globally, millions of children attend Outside School Hours Care. Children's activity in this setting is critical to meeting daily physical activity recommendations. Guidelines are evidence-based statements intended to optimise practice. This study aimed to identify guidelines used in Outside School Hours Care for physical activity and screen time and summarise their content and methods of development. METHODS: Outside School Hours Care guidelines for children aged 5 to 12 years were identified by systematically searching Medline, Emcare, Embase, Scopus, ERIC, Sportsdiscus, TROVE, ProQuest, UpToDate, NICE, SIGN and Google in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The search was conducted in March 2019 and results screened independently by two authors. Data were synthesized narratively. RESULTS: Nine guideline documents were identified from grey literature only (n = 8 USA, n = 1 Canada). The included guidelines focused predominantly on the after school care period (n = 9 vs n = 2 for the before school period). All had recommendations for physical activity, whilst 7 included screen time recommendations. There was considerable variability across the physical activity and screen time recommendations, though taken together, they recommended 30-60 min of moderate- to- vigorous physical activity and less than 60 min of recreational screen time per session. All guidelines were developed by expert/stakeholder panels, but none followed rigorous guideline development methods. CONCLUSIONS: Limited published guidelines for physical activity and screen time in Outside School Hours Care exist. There is a variation in duration and intensity of physical activity recommended, whilst screen time recommendations are more consistent. Guidelines designed with rigorous tools and for other world regions are warranted.
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 | 0.038 | 0.153 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".