The impact of COVID–19 restrictive measures on physical activity in children and adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this review was to gather studies that reported on the impact of COVID-19 restrictive measures on physical activity and sedentary behavior in children and adolescents, and to present key findings. The search for articles was performed in three databases of scientific literature: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. We included articles that reported a change in the amount of physical activity and/or sedentary behavior during COVID-19 restrictive measures compared to the period before them. The quality of the articles was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The search returned 1391 hits, out of which 23 articles were included in the review. The studies showed that participation in physical activity predominantly decreased (in 17/23 studies) and sedentary behavior predominantly increased (in 16/17 studies). The results regarding the reduction of physical activity were the most consistent for moderate to vigorous physical activity, while the direction of change was mixed for some types of physical activity (e.g., exercise, walking). The results regarding sedentary behavior were mostly consistent in terms of increasing the total amount of sedentary behavior as well as types of sedentary behavior (e.g., watching TV, using tablets). This review showed that COVID-19 restrictive measures have further increased the issue of insufficient physical activity and excessive sedentary behavior among children and adolescents. There is a need for the development of interventions for maintaining/increasing physical activity among children and adolescents that would be suitable for the implementation during the future pandemics and other similar crisis situations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".