Determinants of Outdoor Time in Children and Youth: A Systematic Review of Longitudinal and Intervention Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spending more time outdoors can improve children's social and cognitive development, physical activity, and vision. Our systematic review summarized the determinants of outdoor time (OT) based on the social-ecological model. We searched nine databases: MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, ERIC, SocINDEX, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. To be included, studies needed to be quantitative and longitudinal, include ≥1 potential determinant of OT among 0- to 17-year-olds, and be published in English, French, Japanese, or Spanish. We extracted the authors, publication year, country, design, sample size, OT measures, follow-up period, potential determinants, main results, and potential moderators or mediators. Fifty-five studies examining 119 potential determinants met the inclusion criteria. OT was consistently higher in warmer seasons and among participants reporting more OT at baseline. All three interventions that included both parent sessions and additional resources to promote OT (e.g., specific advice and community guides) were effective. COVID-19 restrictions and sun safety interventions discouraging midday outdoor activities led to less OT. The quality of evidence was rated as weak for 46 studies. Most potential determinants were examined in ≤3 studies; thus, more longitudinal studies are needed to enable stronger conclusions about the consistency of evidence and meta-analyses.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".