Parents’ experiences of family-based physical activity interventions: a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children and adolescents are at increased risk of adverse health consequences linked to physical inactivity. Parental support is positively correlated with children and adolescents' physical activity (PA) levels. As a result, family-based interventions are acknowledged as an effective strategy for enhancing PA among this cohort. However, the effects of these interventions on child and adolescent PA are often inconsistent, with calls for more in-depth understanding of the contextual issues related to intervention implementation and parents' experiences of interventions. The purpose of this review was to appraise and synthesize qualitative research regarding parents' experiences of family-based PA interventions. METHODS: Seven databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SportDiscus, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, and ProQuest) were searched for studies published from inception to January 2024 that included qualitative evaluative data of parents' experiences of family-based PA interventions. The research quality of included studies was appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Qualitative data were extracted and thematically synthesized. RESULTS: A total of 7,770 articles were screened, of which 82 independent studies were included in the final synthesis. Three analytic themes were generated. (1) The reasons why parents enrolled in family-based interventions and the perceived benefits for parents, children, and families; (2) Parents' perspectives on intervention components, including their satisfaction, coherence, and suggestions for improvement; (3) The social and environmental factors shaping parents' intervention experiences and parental PA support. Findings show the benefits of PA, being a good role model and spending time together as motives for enrollment. Parents perceived child or adolescent's PA confidence and overall well-being and family functioning improved. Parents presented mixed views about planning, goal setting, self-monitoring, intervention materials and resources, and delivery. Child or adolescents' interest, social connections, financial constraints and availability of resources impacted parental engagement. CONCLUSIONS: This novel and comprehensive review offers practical recommendations to guide intervention development and inform future policy and practice such as: consider using co-design methods and social network analysis; promoting the benefits of PA on family functioning during recruitment; strengthening parents PA support identities; provide opportunities for social support for families post-intervention and educate coaches to create an environment of inclusivity and enjoyment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023421539.
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 | 0.043 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".