The Effectiveness of Physical Activity Policies in Center-Based Childcare: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Many young children spend a significant portion of time in center-based childcare settings; however, these children are often not sufficiently active during care. Promoting physical activity through policy implementation is one mechanism which has the potential to increase physical activity. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to provide an overview of physical activity policies implemented in childcare centers and determine their effect on children’s physical activity. Methods: Electronic searches were conducted in CINAHL, Medline, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Sports Medicine and Education Database. Two reviewers independently examined 3,286 articles to find peer-reviewed, original studies that assessed the impact of physical activity policies on children’s physical activity. Random effects meta-analyses were used to determine the impact of policies. Results: A total of 13 articles met the inclusion criteria; in which 12 unique policies were implemented. Results of the meta-analyses suggest that introducing new physical activity policies did not increase children’s moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA); however, compared to centers without a formalized physical activity policy, children in centers with a formalized policy engaged in significantly more MVPA and total physical activity. Conclusions: Introducing new physical activity policies alone may not be sufficient to increase children’s engagement in physical activity, and it may be important to combine with capacity-building initiatives for childcare staff and early childhood educators. Results reinforce the value of childcare centers implementing their own formalized physical activity policies to support children’s physical activity, which highlights the importance of regulating physical activity practices in childcare. Registration: CRD42022326037.
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 | 0.023 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".