Exploration of parental rewards in incentivizing children's physical activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the prevalence, varieties, and motivations behind parent-selected incentivization for children's physical activity (PA). Parents ( n = 90; 30.0 ± 8.5 years) of children (8.7 ± 2.1 years) completed a web-based survey that included items regarding the use of PA rewards, children's moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA, min·week−1), access to electronic devices, and demographic characteristics. Open-ended questions were used to determine the type of activity rewarded, type of reward given, and parents’ reasoning for not using PA rewards. Independent sample t-tests were used to determine differences between reward groups (reward and no reward) and parent-reported children's MVPA. Open-ended responses underwent thematic analysis. Over half (55%) of the respondents provided PA rewards. There was no difference between reward groups for MVPA. Parents reported their children having access to various technology modes, including TV, tablets, video game systems, computers, and cellphones. Most of the parents (78.2%) reported restricting their child's technology time in some capacity. Rewarded PAs were thematized as “children responsibilities”, “non-sport activity”, and “sport”. Two themes regarding types of rewards included “tangible” and “nontangible”. Two underlying themes as to why parents did not give rewards were deemed “built-in-habit” and “enjoyment”. Rewarding children's PA is prevalent among this sample of parents. Substantial variety exists regarding the type of PA incentivized and the type of reward provided. Future studies should explore whether parents use reward structures and how they conceptualize nontangible, electronics-based rewards versus tangible rewards to incentivize children's PA to promote lifelong behavior.
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 | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".