RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Parents ' perception of stroller use in young
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite their wide usage, it has recently been suggested that stroller use may reduce physical activity levels of young children. However, there have been no studies on stroller use as it relates to physical activity outcomes. The objectives of this study were to understand the context of stroller use for young children and parents ’ perceptions of the relationship between stroller use and their children’s physical activity. Methods: Parents of children 1 to 5 years of age were recruited through two sites of TARGet Kids!, a primary-care, practice-based research network in Toronto, Canada. Fourteen semi-structured interviews were conducted. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim and two independent reviewers conducted thematic analysis. A number of strategies were employed to ensure the trustworthiness of the data. Results: Parents discussed reasons for stroller use (i.e., transportation; storage; leisure; supervision/confinement; parent physical activity; and sleep), factors that influence the decision to use a stroller (i.e., caregiver choice; convenience, timing, distance; family lifestyle; and child preference), and perceived impact of stroller use on physical activity (i.e., most parents did not recognize a connection between stroller use and physical activity). Conclusion: This study provides a context for researchers and policy makers to consider when developing stroller related physical activity guidelines for young children.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".