Characteristics of Combined Movement Behavior Interventions in Children and Adolescents: A Scoping Review

Le résumé fourni par la source

Evidence suggests that targeting physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep in combination can benefit health and academic outcomes in young people. This scoping review aimed to describe the extent, range, and nature of combined movement behavior interventions and examine recruitment and effectiveness patterns in equity-denied populations. The following electronic databases were searched: Web of Science, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO. Gray literature was identified through ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, Google Scholar, and the British Library EThOS. Included studies were randomized or quasi-experimental interventions that modified two or more movement behaviors with the goal of affecting health-, behavioral-, or academic-related outcomes in children or adolescents. Peer-reviewed publications from scientific databases, master's level dissertations, and doctoral theses from gray literature searches in the English language were included. The behavior change technique taxonomy and PROGRESS-Plus framework were used to map intervention characteristics. Thirty studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were individual-level randomized controlled trials (40%), conducted in Europe (43%), and delivered in a school setting (77%). Physical activity and sedentary behavior were the predominant behaviors that were modified (83%). The most commonly used behavior change techniques included information about health consequences (67%) and social support [unspecified] (70%). All included studies focused on health-related outcome measures. Ten studies (33%) examined differential effects by PROGRESS-Plus subgroups. Future research should explore the value of movement behavior interventions across the breadth of non-health-related outcomes and include a stronger focus on differential effectiveness across population subgroups.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.