Mapping Evidence on Integrated 24-Hour Movement Behaviors in Children and Adolescents: A Scoping Review of Reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been a substantial increase in research on the new 24-hour movement paradigm, emphasizing the importance of considering the "whole day" and investigating integrated movement behaviors (physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep). This scoping review aims to map the evidence from reviews that have summarized information on integrated 24-hour movement behaviors in children and adolescents. METHODS: Eight databases were searched in May 2023, with an update in October 2024. The review followed the PRISMA-ScR framework and the guidelines of the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual. RESULTS: National 24-hour movement guidelines for children and adolescents exist in only a few countries (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa). There is a lack of valid and reliable measurement tools for assessing 24-hour movement. Globally, children and adolescents, with and without disabilities, show low adherence to these guidelines. Reallocating time to moderate-to-vigorous physical activity was beneficial, while other reallocations had mixed results to health. COVID-19 reduced physical activity and increased screen time and sleep. Healthy movement behaviors are positively associated with better health outcomes in children and adolescents. There is a possible relationship between adherence to 24-hour movement behaviors and cognitive function, pollution measures, and eHealth interventions. Inconsistencies were identified in the terms used. CONCLUSIONS: High-quality research is needed to develop measurement tools that assess the long-term health impact of 24-hour movement and to create solutions for improving adherence, mainly in countries lacking specific guidelines.
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 | 0.030 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".