Efficacy of a Physical Activity e-Learning Course Delivered to Early Childhood Educators on Preschoolers’ Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviors: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial
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
PURPOSE: This study examined the effectiveness of an early childhood educator (ECE)-focused physical activity e-Learning course on children's physical activity and sedentary time in childcare. METHODS: A cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted in 12 childcare centers in London, Ontario, Canada. A total of 145 preschoolers and 42 ECEs participated in this study. ECEs in the intervention condition completed a 5-hour e-Learning course related to physical activity. Outcomes were preschoolers' minutes of moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity, light-intensity physical activity, and sedentary time assessed using accelerometers. RESULTS: The intervention did not have a significant effect on moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity (d < 0.01, P = .984), light-intensity physical activity (d = -0.17, P = .386), or sedentary time (d = 0.07, P = .717) from baseline to postintervention. There was also no significant intervention effect on moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity (d = 0.27, P = .260), light-intensity physical activity (d = -0.08, P = .740), or sedentary time (d = -0.15, P = .520) from baseline to follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Providing ECEs with online training in physical activity through an e-Learning course may not be sufficient to increase physical activity levels among young children in their care. It may be essential to deliver multicomponent interventions to increase preschoolers' engagement in physical activity in childcare.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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