<scp>Family‐based</scp> physical activity interventions and family functioning: A systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family physical activity (PA) can confer multiple health benefits, yet whether PA interventions affect general family functioning has not been appraised. The purpose of this review was to evaluate studies that have examined the effect of family PA interventions, where child PA was the focus of the intervention, on constructs of family functioning. Literature searches were concluded on January 11, 2022 using seven common databases. Eligible studies were in English, utilized a family PA intervention, and assessed a measure of family functioning as a study outcome. The initial search yielded 8413 hits, which was reduced to 20 independent PA interventions of mixed quality after screening for eligibility criteria. There was mixed evidence for whether family PA interventions affected overall family functioning; however, analyses of subdomains indicated that family cohesion is improved by PA interventions when children are in the early school years (aged 5-12). High-quality studies also showed an impact of family PA interventions on family organization. Targeted interventions at specific family subsystems (e.g., father-son, mother-daughter), characteristics (low-income, clinical populations, girls), and broad multibehavioral interventions may have the most reliable effects. Overall, the findings show that family PA interventions can promote family cohesion and organization, particularly among families with children in the early school years. Higher quality research, employing randomized trial designs and targeting specific intervention and sample characteristics (e.g., different clinical conditions, specific parent-child dyads), is recommended in order to better ascertain the effectiveness of these approaches.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it