Home- and Community-Based Interventions for Physical Activity and Early Child Development: A Systematic Review of Effective Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review examined the effects of home/family and community-based interventions on physical activity (PA) and developmental outcomes in early childhood. A search strategy was employed using four electronic databases (Academic Search Complete, CINAHL Complete, MEDLINE, and SPORTDiscus). Interventions investigating weight status (i.e., BMI), physical activity, sedentary behavior, and/or motor proficiency that took place in home, family, or community settings were assessed. Studies were eligible if they were peer-reviewed, available in English, published between 2011 and 2021, and if samples consisted of healthy young children (2-5 years old). There were 24 studies retained (8351 participants) spanning from the United States (n = 12), Australia (n = 3), Canada (n = 2), Switzerland (n = 2), Finland (n = 2), Netherlands (n = 1), and other Eastern European countries (n = 2). There were 19 studies that incorporated home/family-based approaches and 14 studies that incorporated community-based approaches. Studies ranged in intervention duration from 6 weeks to 24 months. It suggests that improving PA participation in young children was especially challenging to solicit improvement (only 25% of all studies found significant improvement in PA after intervention). Distributing educational material to parents/families, consistent, direct contact with parents, and encouraging community engagement were identified as effective strategies to promote physical activity, healthy weight status, and motor skills in young children.
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 | 0.011 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".