Movement behaviour education for parents in prenatal, postnatal, and pediatric care in Canada: A needs assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Parents/guardians can greatly influence their child’s movement behaviours (i.e., physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and sleep). Yet, they have reported to lack sufficient background knowledge to foster healthy movement habits, and little is known about specific educational gaps. The aim of this study was to explore the educational background and needs regarding promoting healthy movement behaviours in early childhood among parents/guardians living in Canada. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted with parents/guardians living in Canada who had at least one child under the age of 5 years. Participants completed an online survey capturing their demographics, information they received about movement behaviours in early childhood during their prenatal/postnatal care or child’s pediatrician appointments, where they sourced information about these topics, content areas they would like more information on, and preferred format for delivery. Descriptive statistics and frequencies were calculated for all outcome variables and logistic regression was used to explore if sociodemographic variables were associated with receiving movement behaviour-related education across care types. Results Among the 576 parents/guardians who completed the survey, many reported no mention of any movement behaviour in their prenatal (49.4%), postnatal (29.6%), and pediatric care (37.2%). Physical activity was the most cited movement behaviour across care types, with 42.4%, 57.9%, and 54.8% of participants indicating this was discussed in their prenatal, postnatal, and pediatric care, respectively. Only 41.7% of parents/guardians reported asking their child’s pediatrician about movement behaviours, while most relied on social media (70.9%), internet websites/news articles (68.7%), and family/friends (67.6%). The most sought-after movement behaviour topics included incorporating movement into traditionally sedentary activities (68.8%) and activity ideas to break up sitting time (65.0%), and participants expressed preference to receive more information via social media (63.2%), an online resource package (47.8%), or email (46.6%). Conclusions Given the noted inconsistencies in education relating to movement behaviours in maternal and pediatric care, this study highlights the opportunity for greater integration of this type of education across care types. Ensuring all parents/guardians receive evidence-based and consistent guidance on their child’s movement behaviours will help ensure young children receive the best start to a healthy active life.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".