24-Hour movement index : exploring the acceptability among parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines (24HMG) for Children and Youth were introduced in 2016 offering recommendations on moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), light physical activity (LPA), sedentary behaviour (SB), and sleep in a typical 24-hour period to achieve optimal health outcomes. However, a lack of awareness and knowledge about the guidelines among children and parents is a concerning issue and may contribute to the low guideline adherence of Canadian children. A “Movement Index” app is planned to help parents track their children’s movement behaviours through manual data entry and/or a wearable device. The Index would also demonstrate to parents how the combination of their children’s movement behaviours, such as a change in time reallocation, may be associated with different health outcomes. Using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA), this study explores the following objectives: 1) whether the Movement Index is acceptable to parents, 2) what refinements should be made to improve the Movement Index, and 3) are there differences in perceptions of acceptability between mothers and fathers. Methods: Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted over Zoom with 22 parents of children 5-11 from across Canada. Interview data was analyzed with thematic analysis using a constant comparative method. Results: Results suggest that the Movement Index is acceptable on three constructs (perceived effectiveness, intervention coherence, social acceptability), mostly acceptable on two (affective attitude, ethicality), and mixed acceptability for the remaining three (burden, opportunity cost, self-efficacy). Discussion: On balance, the Movement Index was found to be acceptable, and the project should proceed with several caveats that need to be addressed regarding accessibility and ethical concerns. The TFA was an effective framework for examining acceptability in the Movement Index, although critical reflections included overlapping constructs and lack of criteria for making a final judgement on acceptability. Future work is required to develop and pilot the Movement Index before further examining its acceptability and usability.
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 | 0.018 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".