The Implementation and Feasibility of the Supporting Physical Activity in the Childcare Environment (SPACE) Intervention: A Process Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study describes the process evaluation of the Supporting Physical Activity in the Childcare Environment (SPACE) intervention, consisting of educator physical activity training, provision of portable play equipment, and a modified outdoor schedule (i.e., 4 × 30-minute periods). Educators (N = 49) from 11 childcare centers in London, Ontario, Canada, delivered the 8-week intervention to 200 preschoolers (Mage = 3.38 years). Workshop attendance was documented while adherence to the outdoor schedule and number and timing of outdoor sessions offered (i.e., dose) were recorded in a daily log. Questionnaire-based program evaluation (n = 41) and in-person group interviews (n = 7) were completed postintervention to assess educator perspectives on the barriers and facilitators to implementation (i.e., context), the feasibility and perceived effectiveness of the intervention, educator and preschooler enjoyment, communication among researchers and childcare personnel, and the future implementation of the intervention. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and responses to open-ended questions were inductively coded. Educator workshop attendance was 96%, and 88% of classrooms adhered to the four daily outdoor periods. Educators delivered 90% of the scheduled outdoor sessions, and 87% of these met the 30-minute criteria. Educators expressed that the increase in number of transitions made the outdoor playtimes challenging to implement, yet rated the feasibility of the training and equipment as high. Educators perceived the intervention to be both enjoyable and effective at increasing preschoolers’ physical activity. They indicated effective communication and revealed that they intended to continue to use their physical activity knowledge and to offer the play equipment once the intervention had concluded. These findings demonstrate that the SPACE intervention is viable in center-based childcare.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".