Do adolescents' experiences of the barriers to and facilitators of physical activity differ by socioeconomic position? A systematic review of qualitative evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review aims to systematically identify and synthesize qualitative data on adolescents' experiences of the barriers to and facilitators of physical activity to understand whether these differ by socioeconomic position. Multiple databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, PsycINFO, and ERIC) were searched in August 2020. Duplicate title/abstract and full text screening was conducted. Studies were included if they reported qualitative data collected from adolescents (aged 10-19), a measure of socioeconomic position and focused on physical activity. Studies not published in English or published before 2000 were excluded. Relevant data were extracted and methodological quality assessed (in duplicate). Data were analyzed using Thomas and Harden's methods for the thematic synthesis. Four analytical themes emerged from the 25 included studies: (1) social support, (2) accessibility and the environment, (3) other behaviors and health, and (4) gendered experiences. These themes appeared across socioeconomic groups; however, their narratives varied significantly. For example, provision and access to local facilities was discussed as a facilitator to middle and high socioeconomic adolescents, but was a barrier to low socioeconomic adolescents. These findings can be used to inform how different socioeconomic groups may benefit from, or be disadvantaged by, current 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".