Physical Activity Participation among Children and Youth with Mental Health Symptoms: Clinician Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Physical activity supports mental health and well-being in children and youth. However, there are significant barriers to physical activity participation among individuals impacted by mental health disorders. This study investigates these barriers through the perspective of mental health clinicians who support children and youth. METHODS: Fourteen mental health clinicians, including registered professional psychologists, psychotherapists, and social workers, were interviewed in a semi-structured format. Qualitative content analysis was performed to identify key themes, including both barriers and facilitators to physical activity. RESULTS: Content analysis revealed that clinicians perceive both internal and external barriers and facilitators to their clients' participation in physical activity. Barriers included intrapersonal factors, such as the presence of depression, anxiety, or eating disorder symptoms; lack of motivation; and negative self-talk, as well as factors related to the influence of caregivers, financial limitations, screen time use, environmental and cultural factors, and lack of time. Facilitators included enjoyment of physical activity, knowledge about the benefits of physical activity, and caregiver participation. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health clinicians demonstrated clear knowledge about the barriers to and facilitators of their clients' participation in physical activity. These findings provide valuable insights that can be used to support children and youth experiencing mental health difficulty to access the beneficial effects of physical activity.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".