Factors associated with physical activity policy and practice implementation in British Columbia’s childcare settings: a longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background In 2016–17, the government of British Columbia (BC) enacted a mandatory policy outlining Active Play Standards (AP Standards) alongside a capacity building initiative (Appetite to Play) focused on implementing policies and practices to support physical activity in childcare centres. We aimed to identify factors at the provider and organizational levels as well as attributes of the Standards hypothesized to influence implementation (i.e., changes in policies and practices). Methods We conducted surveys before (2016–2017) and after (2018–2019) enforcement of the AP Standards among 146 group childcare centres across BC. The 2018–19 surveys measured theoretically based constructs associated with implementation of policies and practices (9 childcare- and 8 provider- level characteristics as well as 4 attributes of the licensing standards). Characteristics that were associated in simple regression models were entered in multivariable regression models to identify factors associated with policy and practice changes related to fundamental movement skills (FMS), screen time, total amount of active play (AP) and total amount of outdoor AP from baseline to follow-up. Results In multivariable analyses, higher staff capacity (OR = 2.1, 95% 1.2, 3.7) and perceived flexibility of the standards (OR: 3.3, 95% 1.5, 7.1) were associated with higher odds of a policy change related to FMS. Higher staff commitment to the AP standards was associated with a higher odds of policy changes related to screen time (OR = 1.6, 95% CI: 1.1, 2.4) and amount of AP (OR: 1.5, 95% 1.0, 2.3). Higher institutionalization of PA policies was associated with a higher odds of policy changes related to the amount of AP (OR: 5.4, 95% CI: 1.5, 20). Higher self-efficacy was associated with a higher odds of policy changes related to outdoor AP (OR = 2.9, 95% 1.1, 7.8). Appetite to Play training was a positively associated with practice changes related to FMS (β = 0.5, 95% CI: 0.1, 0.9). Conclusions A hierarchy of theoretically defined factors influenced childcare providers’ implementation of the AP Standards in BC. Future research should test the feasibility of modifying these factors to improve the implementation of PA policy and practice interventions in this setting.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".