Association Between Active Outdoor Play and Health Among Children, Adolescents, and Adults: An Umbrella Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This umbrella review examined the associations between active outdoor play (AOP) and physical, mental, social, and spiritual health across all ages. METHODS: A systematic search of 8 bibliographic databases was conducted to identify quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods systematic reviews and meta-analyses examining associations between AOP and human physical, social, mental, and spiritual health. Included reviews were written in English or French and published in or after 2014. Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 was used to assess the quality of reviews. Quantitative findings on statistical observations of null, favorable, and unfavorable findings were used to assess the consistency of evidence. Bradford Hill's criteria was used to assess causality. RESULTS: Six systematic reviews-3 quantitative, 2 mixed-methods, and 1 qualitative-were included in the umbrella review, encompassing 381 articles. Four and 2 reviews were assessed as critically low and high quality, respectively. For physical, social, and spiritual health, 78% (7/9 observations, 2 reviews), 72% (13/18 observations, 3 reviews), and 100% (9/9 observations, 1 review) showed that AOP was favorably associated with the respective health outcomes based on children and adolescent studies exclusively. By contrast, 71% (53/75 observations, 4 reviews) showed that AOP was favorably associated with mental health inclusive of all ages. There was partial support for causality between AOP and all health outcomes. A figure was created to illustrate possible pathways from AOP to health outcomes. CONCLUSION: Largely positive associations were observed between AOP and physical, social, mental, and spiritual health, especially among children and adolescents. The greatest source of favorable evidence across all ages was on AOP and mental health, highlighting benefits for public health.
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 | 0.016 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".