MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410001862 · doi:10.1186/s12966-025-01749-0

Impact of a multi-component implementation strategy to increase outdoor free play opportunities in early childhood education and care (ECEC) services: the get outside get active (GOGA) randomised controlled trial

2025· article· en· W4410001862 on OpenAlexaff
Sze Lin Yoong, Nicole Pearson, Luke Giles, Hannah Lamont, Luke Wolfenden, Jannah Jones, Christophe Lecathelinais, Patti‐Jean Naylor, Anthony D. Okely, Nicole Nathan, Kathryn Reilly, R. Lorch, John Wiggers, Jacklyn Jackson, Melanie Lum, Karen Gillham, Alice Grady

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Therapy and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersMedical Research CouncilHunter New England Local Health DistrictNational Health and Medical Research CouncilNational Heart Foundation of AustraliaWellcome Trust
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialComponent (thermodynamics)Early childhoodEarly childhood educationMedicineClinical nutritionPhysical therapyPsychologyNursingPedagogyDevelopmental psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Increased outdoor free play is associated with health and developmental benefits for preschool-aged children. It is therefore recommended that early childhood education and care (ECEC) services provide increased time for outdoor free play. This study seeks to understand the impact of a multi-component implementation strategy (Get Outside Get Active) on ECEC service provision of opportunities for outdoor free play. METHODS: This was a parallel-group randomised controlled trial involving 84 ECEC services located in one region of New South Wales, Australia. Forty-one services were randomised to a 6-month multi-component implementation strategy or to a usual care group (n = 43). To increase total scheduled outdoor free play time, services were supported to modify their routines to increase provision of outdoor free play and/or indoor-outdoor free play opportunities (whereby children are allowed to move freely between indoor and outdoor spaces). The primary trial outcome, mean minutes per day of outdoor free play opportunities provided in ECEC services, was measured at baseline, 6-months (primary endpoint), and 18-months. Secondary outcomes were mean minutes of indoor-outdoor free play only and proportion implementing indoor-outdoor free play for the full day. The quality of the movement environment was assessed using direct observations in 30 ECECs at 6 months only. RESULTS: At 6 months, the intervention group showed a significant increase in mean daily minutes of outdoor free play (61.3 min; 95% CI 2.5 to 120.01; p = 0.041) and indoor-outdoor free play (59.1 min; 95% CI 9.1 to 109.1; p = 0.021) relative to the control group. However, no significant between-group differences were observed at 18 months. The proportion implementing a full-day indoor-outdoor program (OR 1.97; 95% CI 0.81 to 4.78; p = 0.196) and the quality of movement environments did not differ between groups at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation strategy significantly increased outdoor free play opportunities in ECEC services post-intervention, though the between group effects were not sustained at 18 months. Future research should focus on ensuring the long-term impact of implementation strategies and understanding the factors driving changes in control group behaviour. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12621000987864).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.361 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical ActivitySame topicChild Therapy and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207