Understanding factors that influence physical activity behavior in people with developmental coordination disorder (DCD): a mixed-methods convergent integrated systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review synthesizes the literature on physical activity amongst people with DCD using the COM-B framework. The review questions were: (1) what is the Capability (C), Opportunity (O) and Motivation (M) for physical activity and (2) what does physical activity behavior (B) look like? A mixed-methods systematic review was conducted by searching eight databases (PubMed, APA PsycINFO, EMBASE, Scopus, Child Development and Adolescent Studies, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL) up to July 2023. Data were extracted, thematically analyzed, and mapped to the COM-B model. The quality of studies was assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022319127). Forty-three papers, 42 of which related to children, were included. Fifteen aligned with physical activity behavior, nine with physical capability, thirteen with psychological capability, one with social opportunity, one with physical opportunity, one with reflective motivation and three with automatic motivation. Pre-school-aged children with DCD engage in comparable levels of physical activity behavior, but differences emerge from 6 years of age. Characteristics of DCD result in reduced physical capability and less varied participation in physical activity. This impacts psychological capability, whereby lower self-perceptions result in a negative feedback loop and reduce the motivation to participate. Barriers relating to social opportunities may result in poor reflective and automatic motivation, although there is evidence that interventions can enhance enjoyment in the short term.
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 | 0.022 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".