Interventions to promote healthy lifestyle behaviors in children and adolescents in summer day camps: a scoping 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
BACKGROUND: Children and adolescents have suboptimal physical activity and eating habits during summer breaks. Unlike the school setting, there is little evidence on interventions to promote healthy lifestyle behaviors in Summer Day Camps (SDCs). METHODS: The aim of this scoping review was to examine physical activity, healthy eating, and sedentary behavior interventions in the SDCs. A systematic search on four platforms (EBSCOhost, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science) was performed in May 2021 and was updated in June 2022. Studies related to promoting healthy behaviors, physical activity, sedentary behaviors and/or healthy eating among campers aged 6 to 16 in Summer Day Camps were retained. The protocol and writing of the scoping review were done according to the guidelines of the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR)". RESULTS: Most interventions had a positive effect on the behavioral determinants or the behaviors themselves (i.e., physical activity, sedentary behaviors, or healthy eating). Involving counsellors and parents, setting camp goals, gardening, and education are all relevant strategies in promoting healthy lifestyle behaviors in SDCs. CONCLUSIONS: Since only one intervention directly targeted sedentary behaviors, it should strongly be considered for inclusion in future studies. In addition, more long-term and experimental studies are needed to establish cause-and-effect relationships between healthy behavior interventions in SDCs and behaviors of children and young adolescents.
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 | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it