Parents’ Perceptions of Children’s and Adolescents’ Use of Electronic Devices to Promote Physical Activity: Systematic Review of Qualitative Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of physical activity (PA) electronic devices offers a unique opportunity to engage children and adolescents in PA. For this age group (2-17 years), parents play a key role in promoting healthy lifestyles and regulating the use of electronic devices. Therefore, parents' perceptions of the use of electronic devices for PA in children and adolescents are critical for efficient intervention. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this qualitative systematic review was to improve the understanding of parents' perceptions of the use of electronic devices for PA in children and adolescents. METHODS: A systematic search of electronic databases (Medline/PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, Scopus, OpenGrey, and Deep Blue) was conducted. Studies from inception (2010) to May 2022 were identified. Qualitative studies on the perceptions of healthy children's and adolescents' (aged 2-17 years) parents regarding PA interventions performed on electronic devices were included according to the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group Guidance Series and the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research (ENTREQ) statement. The Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument was used for methodological validity. RESULTS: In total, 18 studies with 410 parents, mostly mothers, were included. Parents' perceptions were grouped into 4 categories: usefulness, advantages, general perceptions (electronic devices for health promotion, preferences for real-life PA, and concerns), and acceptability (barriers and facilitators) of electronic devices for PA. Parents perceived electronic devices as useful for increasing PA, learning new skills, and increasing motivation for PA and valued those devices that promoted socialization and family and peer bonding. In terms of general perceptions, parents had positive attitudes toward PA electronic devices; however, they preferred outdoor and real-life PA, especially for preschoolers and children. Concerns, such as physical and psychological harm, addiction, conflicts, and compliance difficulties, were found. Facilitators were identified as ease of use, appropriate feedback, promotion of socialization, and motivational strategies, such as rewards, challenges, and attractiveness. Barriers, such as discomfort, price, and difficulties in using or understanding electronic devices, were also identified. For older children and adolescents, parents were more concerned about high levels of screen time and setting limits on electronic devices and therefore preferred PA electronic devices rather than traditional ones. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the participants had positive attitudes toward electronic devices for PA and perceived them as an effective way to promote PA in children and adolescents. They also perceived several benefits of using electronic devices, such as health promotion, increased awareness and motivation, and socialization, as well as barriers, facilitators, and age differences. The results of this study could provide researchers with insights into designing more effective, age-appropriate PA electronic devices for children and adolescents and improving adherence to their use. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021292340; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=292340.
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 | 0.037 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".