Parental/Guardian–Child Physical Activity in Relation to Racial/Ethnic Inequities in the Americas: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: This study mapped parent/guardian–child physical activity (PA) inequities across racial and ethnic groups in the Americas. Method: A systematic scoping review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. Searches were carried out in January 2025 in the following databases: SciELO, LILACS, Web of Science, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, and PsycINFO. Eligible studies were original articles that jointly assessed parents/guardians and children from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. Results: 4195 articles were found, and a total of 25 studies were included (cross-sectional design n = 20). Among these, 18 studies reported that higher parental/guardian PA was associated with greater child PA, regardless of race and ethnic background. Only seven studies provided explicit race and ethnic comparisons (six cross-sectional and one cohort). In four studies Black/African American parents/guardians and children were less physically active than their White counterparts; one study of Latino families showed lower participation in sports compared with African Americans; in one study Hispanic, African American, and Asian families had lower odds of engaging in PA compared with White peers; and one study of African American and Mexican American families reported lower participation in non-competitive individual sports than Anglo families. Conclusions: This review demonstrates consistent associations between parental/guardian and child PA, although a few studies reported null or inverse findings. Moreover, racial and ethnic inequalities in intergenerational PA reflect broader structural health inequities, where access to time, space, and resources for movement remains unevenly distributed.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".