Implementation Adherence and Perspectives of the Childcare PhysicaL ActivitY (PLAY) Policy: A Process Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Childcare PhysicaL ActivitY (PLAY) policy was an evidence-informed, eight-item institutional-level policy document targeting children’s physical activity, outdoor play, and sedentary time. Nine childcare centers in London, Ontario, participated in this cluster, randomized controlled trial. Early Childhood Educators allocated to the experimental group, from five childcare centers in London, Ontario, implemented the policy for young children (18 months to 4 years) for 8 weeks and documented adherence to each policy item (i.e., dose) in daily logs. Program evaluation surveys ( n = 21) and interviews ( n = 10) were completed postintervention to assess Early Childhood Educators’ perspectives of feasibility, context, enjoyment, communication between researchers and childcare staff, and likelihood of future implementation. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and thematic analysis was conducted. Adherence to policy items ranged from 16.5% (for delivery of shorter, more frequent outdoor periods) to 85.9% (for delivery of unstructured/child-directed play). Participants reported effective communication between the research team and childcare centers (0 = not at all effective to 5 = very effective; M = 4.20; SD = 0.83) but noted that they were unlikely to continue the implementation of more frequent outdoor periods (0 = not at all likely to 5 = extremely likely; M = 2.19; SD = 1.21). Interview themes included weather as a prominent barrier and the use of verbal prompts as a solution for implementing the policy. As this was a small and short-term intervention, this pilot study offers important insight on larger scale policy interventions aimed at increasing physical activity and minimizing sedentary time among children enrolled in childcare.
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 | 0.089 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".