From: Systematic review of the correlates of outdoor play and time among children aged 3-12 years
Factors within SEM examined | Association | Consistency of association | Summary of evidence (consistent correlate (“+|+” or “–|–”) is in bold) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Studies | Direction | Consistency (%) | Direction/ strength | ||
INDIVIDUAL (18 identified3/35 examined3) | |||||
Demographic | ‘ + ’ (1/5): Race/ethnicity (dominant group) ‘ − ’ (2/5): Sex/gender (girls), English as an additional language | ||||
Age (results from 2 to 12 years only; including grade) | [77]PA, [82, 92]*, [63]PA*, [119]PA, [66]*, [126]*, [50]*, [33, 84]*, [90]*, [111, 134, 137]a:age 7 | ∅ | 14/23 = 61% | ∅ | |
+ | 3/23 = 13% | ||||
– | 6/23 = 26% | ||||
Sex/gender (girls) | [82, 92]*, [63]PA*, [66]*, [67]PA*, [126]*, [129]*, [50]*, [34, 43]*a, [78, 79]*, [89]*, [100]b:wd, [110]*, [111, 134, 137] | ∅ | 18/41 = 43% | −? | |
+ | 3/41 = 7% | ||||
[35]PA, [77]PA, [102]*, [106]*, [60, 61, 118, 130]*, [33]*, [40, 43]*a, [44, 48]PA*, [64]*, [95]*, [99]*, [100]b:we, [112, 113]* | – | 19/41 = 46% | |||
Race/ethnicity (dominant) | White/Caucasian (ref): [82] (Hispanic), [119]PA*(Hispanic), [63]PA* (Black and Hispanic), [66]*(Asian), [61]*(non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and Other) | ∅ | 5/17 = 29% | ++ | |
Chinese (ref): [89] (Malay, Indian, and others)* White/Caucasian (ref): [82] (Black), [92]* (Black, Hispanic, and others), [132] (Hispanic), [66] (Black/Hispanic)*, [67]PA*, [129]* (not specified), [34] (Black and minority ethnicities), [71] (British Pakistani girls), [84] (Turkish), [120] (Moroccan, Turkish, and Caribbean vs Dutch), [127] (Surinamese-Hindustani, Dutch Antillean, Cape Verdean, Turkish, Moroccan) | + | 12/17 = 71% | |||
Immigration status (immigrated) | [44] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
English as an additional language | – | 2/2 = 100% | – | ||
Physical | 0/6 | ||||
Disability status | [66]* | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Weight status (overweight) | ∅ | 8/11 = 73% | ∅∅ | ||
– | 3/11 = 27% | ||||
Pubertal status | [104] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Born premature/birth weight | ∅ | 3/3 = 100% | ∅ | ||
Time in neonatal intensive care unit | [66]* | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Health status (healthy) | ∅ | 9/13 = 69% | ∅∅ | ||
Depression | [96] | ∅ | |||
Itchy or watery eyes | [69]* | ∅ | |||
Asthma attacks | [69]* | ∅ | |||
Cough | [69]* | ∅ | |||
Trouble sleeping | [69]* | ∅ | |||
Feeling tired or having low energy | [69]* | ∅ | |||
Conduct problems | [96] | + | 1/13 = 8% | ||
Body pain or discomfort | [69]* | – | 3/13 = 23% | ||
Repeated upset stomach | [69]* | – | |||
Frequent swollen glands | [69]* | – | |||
Psychological | ‘ + ’ (3/8): Cons of OP, planning skills, perceived sport competence | ||||
Self-efficacy | [31] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Perceived barriers | [31] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Enjoyment | [31] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Pros of sport participation | [31] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Cons of sport participation | [31] | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Planning skills | [31] | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Perceived sport competence | [31] | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Preference for non-active things | [122] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Behavioral/temperament | ‘ + ’ (11/16): Child autonomy/independence, independent mobility, child-initiation, Overall PA, sedentary time, regular play, OP in the past, min/d spent eating lunch, Mediterranean diet, tummy time frequency, temperamentc ‘ − ’ (1/16): Strengths and difficulties | ||||
Child autonomy/independence | ∅ | 2/4 = 50% | +? | ||
+ | 2/4 = 50% | ||||
Independent mobility | + | 2/2 = 100% | + | ||
Child-initiation | [45] | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Overall PA | |||||
PA levels | [72] | ∅ | 1/4 = 25% | ∅ | |
Structured exercise/sport | [104]* | + | 3/4 = 75% | ++ | |
Active travel to/from school | [104]* | + | |||
Dog walking | 66] | + | |||
Screen time/exposure | ∅ | 4/4 = 100% | ∅∅ | ||
Sedentary time (min/week) | [132] | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Regular play | [44] | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
OP in the past | [137] | ∅ | 1/2 = 50% | +? | |
[31] | + | 1/2 = 50% | |||
Number of days breakfast at home (weekly) | [66]* | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Minutes/day spent eating lunch | [66]* | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Mediterranean diet | [92] | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Tummy time within one month of birth | [130] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Tummy time frequency | [130] | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Strengths and difficulties | – | ||||
Internalizing problems | [34] | – | 2/3 = 67% | ||
Pro-social behavior | [34] | – | |||
Externalizing conduct | [34] | + | 1/3 = 33% | ||
Temperament | +? | ||||
Surgency/extraversion | [115] | + | 2/4 = 50% | ||
Negative affectivity | [115]c:boy | + | |||
[115]c:girl | ∅ | 2/4 = 50% | |||
Effortful control | [115] | ∅ | |||
PARENTAL (33 identified3/65 examined3) | |||||
Parental sociodemographic | ‘ + ’ (2/18): Parent’s race/ethnicity (Caucasian/white); parent’s nationality (native) ‘ − ’ (4/18): Parent’s immigration status, parental education, mother’s education, mother’s employment, vehicle ownership | ||||
Age of mother at birth | [66]* | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Age of primary caregiver/mother | ∅ | 2/3 = 66% | ∅ | ||
[98]* | – | 1/3 = 33% | |||
Parent’s gender | [98]* | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Parent’s race/ethnicity | [111] | ∅ | 1/3 = 33% | + | |
White/Caucasian (ref): [118] (Hispanic, Black, and Asian) [50], (Asian or Southeast Asian)* | + | 2/3 = 76% | |||
Parent’s immigration status | Born in Switzerland (ref): [74]PA (immigrated) | – | 1/1 = 100% | – | |
Parental nationality | [130] (Australian born in Australia) | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Parental education | [67]PA*, [122]*, [61]*; [98]*, [33]a,c: 4-6 boy/girl, [74]PA, [84]*, [111] | ∅ | 8/15 = 53% | −? | |
– | 7/15 = 47% | ||||
Maternal | ∅ | 7/13 = 54% | −? | ||
– | 6/13 = 46% | ||||
Paternal | ∅ | 6/8 = 75% | ∅∅ | ||
– | 2/8 = 25% | ||||
Parental employment (employed) | ∅ | 3/5 = 60% | ∅ | ||
[126] | + | 1/5 = 20% | |||
[60]b:weekend | – | 1/5 = 20% | |||
Maternal (employed/prestige) | ∅ | 4/7 = 57% | −? | ||
– | 3/7 = 43% | ||||
Paternal (employed/prestige) | ∅ | 2/4 = 50% | ∅ | ||
[99] | + | 1/4 = 25% | |||
[138]* (white collar vs unemployed or manual worker, craftsman) | – | 1/4 = 25% | |||
Work shift | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | ||
SES/household income (high income) | [82, 96]*, [118, 119]PA, [66]*, [50]*, [61]*, [74]PA, [89, 97, 134] | ∅ | 11/16 = 69% | ∅∅ | |
– | 3/16 = 19% | ||||
+ | 2/16 = 13% | ||||
Vehicle ownership/number of vehicles | [44] | ∅ | 1/2 = 50% | −? | |
[132] | – | 1/2 = 50% | |||
Number of licenses in household | ∅ | 2/2 = 100% | ∅ | ||
Mother’s financial difficulties | [120] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Marital status/cohabitation | ∅ | 4/5 = 80% | ∅∅ | ||
[98]* | + | 1/5 = 20% | |||
Parental health | ‘ − ’ (1/2): Mother’s depression | ||||
Parent’s weight status | ∅ | 3/4 = 75% | ∅ | ||
[111] | + | 1/4 = 25% | |||
Maternal depression | [82] | ∅ | 1/3 = 33% | – | |
– | 2/3 = 67% | ||||
Parenting style/practice | ‘ − ’ (3/9): Hyper-parenting, constraint parenting, encouraging sleep | ||||
Hyper-parenting | – | ||||
Helicopter | [76] | ∅ | 1/4 = 25% | ||
Little emperor | [76] | – | 3/4 = 75% | ||
Tiger mom | [76] | – | |||
Concerted cultivation | [76] | – | |||
Constraint parenting | – | ||||
Avoidance | [81]* | – | 2/2 = 100% | ||
Defensive | [81]* | – | |||
Monitoring of child’s PA | ∅ | 2/2 = 100% | ∅ | ||
Rules in the household | ∅ | 2/3 = 67% | ∅ | ||
[111] | + | 1/3 = 33% | |||
Use PA to reward/control child’s behavior | [129]* | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Use screen time to reward/control child’s behavior | [129]* | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Limit/monitor/discourage screen time | ∅ | 3/4 75% | ∅ | ||
[112] | – | 1/4 = 25% | |||
Limit OP due to weather | [129]* | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Encourages sleep | [98]* | – | 1/1 = 100% | – | |
Parental psychological characteristics | ‘ + ’ (3/14): Parental attitude towards activities, parents informed about playing with child, importance parents ascribed to OP ‘ − ’ (3/14): Family attitude towards OP, intention to improve OP, concerns towards OP/PA | ||||
Parental attitude | |||||
Attitude towards nature | [69]* | + | 4/5 = 80% | ++ | |
Attitude towards recreation | [69]* | + | |||
Attitude towards child’s PA | [112] | + | |||
Attitude towards walking | [132] | + | |||
Attitude towards OP | [111] | – | 1/5 = 20% | ||
Family attitude towards OP | [111]a:age7 | ∅ | 1/2 = 50% | −? | |
[111]a:age5 | – | 1/2 = 50% | |||
Perception/belief/awareness/intention | |||||
Belief that overweight caused be genetic factors | [84]* | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
TPB/awareness about being overweight | ∅ | 2/2 = 100% | ∅ | ||
Belief of being able to give child activities | [130] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Intention to improve OP | [111]a:age7 | ∅ | 1/2 = 50% | −? | |
[111]a:age5 | – | 1/2 = 50% | |||
Concerns | |||||
Mother’s concern towards OP (fearful) | [82] | ∅ | 1/3 = 33% | – | |
[62] | – | 1/2 = 67% | |||
Parental concerns towards child’s PA | [112] | – | |||
Perceived responsibility towards child’s PA | [112] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Pressure towards child’s PA | [112] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Barriers to child’s activity | ∅ | ||||
Walking/cycling logistics | [119]PA | ∅ | 3/4 = 75% | ||
Walking/cycling route | [119]PA | ∅ | |||
Perceived lack of appropriate play areas | [119]PA | ∅ | |||
Crime activity | [119]PA | – | 1/4 = 25% | ||
Knowledge/value/importance | |||||
Informed about playing with child | [130] | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Knowledge of child development | [130] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Importance/value of PA | [129]* | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Importance parents ascribed to OP | [32] | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Parental behavior/modelling | ‘ + ’ (6/11): Parental outdoor activity, parental frequency of walking, parental frequency of organized sport, parental frequency of overall PA, parental modelling, Parental habit strength ‘ − ’ (1/11): Explicit modeling and enjoyment of screen time | ||||
Parental outdoor activity | +? | ||||
Maternal | [114] | + | 1/2 = 50% | ||
Paternal | [114] | ∅ | 1/2 = 50% | ||
Frequency of walking | + | ||||
Maternal | [116]* | + | 2/2 = 100% | ||
Paternal | [116]* | + | |||
Frequency of organized sport | + | ||||
Maternal | [116]* | + | 2/2 = 100% | ||
Paternal | [116]* | + | |||
Overall PA | ++ | ||||
Maternal | + | 3/4 = 75% | |||
Parental | [124]* | ∅ | 1/4 = 25% | ||
Modelling | [111] | ∅ | 1/3 = 33% | + | |
+ | 2/3 = 67% | ||||
Explicit modeling and enjoyment of PA | [129]* | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Explicit modeling and enjoyment of screen time | [129]* | – | 1/1 = 100% | – | |
Smoking during pregnancy | [120] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Breast feeding | [120] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Frequency of parents buying low-cost food | [66]* | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Parental habit strength | [111] | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Parental support | ‘ + ’ (10/11): Co-participation, encouragement, involvement, providing transportation, family visit to OP spaces, emotional support, informational support, instrumental support, companionship, support for PA | ||||
Co-participation | + | 3/3 = 100% | + | ||
Encouragement | ∅ | 2/6 = 33% | +? | ||
[111]a:age7 | – | 1/6 = 17% | |||
+ | 3/6 = 50% | ||||
Transport | [122] | ∅ | 1/2 = 50% | +? | |
[67]PA* | + | 1/2 = 50% | |||
Facilitation | [61] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Involvement | [61] | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Family visited OP spaces (playground/park/picnic areas) | [92] | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Emotional | [110] | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Informational | [110] | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Instrumental | + | 2/2 = 100% | + | ||
Companionship | [110] | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Support for PA | [98]* | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
MICROSYSTEM DIMENSIONS (15 identified3/33 examined3) | |||||
Proximal social environment | ‘ + ’ (6/12): Sibling modelling, grandmother in household, dog/pet ownership, time spent with mother/father, peer support/ modelling and number of regular playmates, other social support ‘ − ’ (2/12): Number of siblings, using only Spanish at home for non-White Hispanic children | ||||
Home | |||||
Number of residents in household | ∅ | 2/2 = 100% | ∅ | ||
Family composition | [97] | ∅ | 6/6 = 100% | ∅∅ | |
Nuclear | [78] | ∅ | |||
Stem | [78] | ∅ | |||
Single parent | ∅ | ||||
Single mother | [120] | ∅ | |||
Remarried | [78] | ∅ | |||
Number of siblings | ∅ | 3/8 = 38% | −? | ||
+ | 2/8 = 25% | ||||
– | 3/8 = 38% | ||||
Older sibling | [82] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Sibling modeling | [111] | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Grandmother in household | [132] | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Using only Spanish at home for Hispanic | [132] | – | 1/1 = 100% | – | |
Dog/pet ownership | + | 2/2 = 100% | + | ||
Time spent alone | [96] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Time spent with mother | [96] | + | 2/2 = 100% | + | |
Time spent with father | [96] | + | |||
Peers | |||||
Has many friends in neighborhood | [122] | ∅ | 3/6 = 50% | +? | |
Lots of children play in neighborhood | [122]* | ∅ | |||
Time spent with peers unsupervised | [96] | ∅ | |||
Number of regular playmates | [118] | + | 3/6 = 50% | ||
Peer support | [110] | + | |||
Peer modeling | [110] | + | |||
Other social support | +? | ||||
Time spent with adults other than parents | [96] | ∅ | 2/7 = 29% | ||
Social modeling | [31] | ∅ | |||
Play space-Friend’s/relative’s house | [132] | + | 4/7 = 57% | ||
Support/reinforcement from other adults | [129]* | + | |||
Social support | [31] | + | |||
Social capital on obesity and child PA | [112] | + | |||
Social grouping (adult present) | [45] | – | 1/7 = 14% | ||
Proximal physical environment (Home) | ‘ + ’ (5/21): Detached house, public housing, living close to friends and family, housing price as a reason for choosing the residence, presence of labor-saving devices, electronics in child’s bedroom ‘ − ’ (1/21): Proximity to work as a reason for choosing the residence | ||||
Housing type (detached) | [32] (detached, corner house, flat/apartment); [82] (duplex/townhome) | ∅ | 2/5 = 40% | +? | |
+ | 2/5 = 40% | ||||
[82] (flat/apartment) | – | 1/5 = 20% | |||
Rental property | [32] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Public housing | + | 2/2 = 100% | + | ||
Duration of residency | ∅ | 3/4 = 75% | ∅∅ | ||
[126] | + | 1/4 = 25% | |||
Degree of high/low rise buildings | [32] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Degree/presence of unoccupied houses | ∅ | 2/2 = 100% | ∅ | ||
Lives in main arterial or busy through road | [122] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Lives in cul-de-sac | [122] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Lives close to friends/family | |||||
Close to friends | [34] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Close to family | [34] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Close to friends and family | [34] | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Chose home due to location of kindergarten | [66]* | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Reasons for choosing current residence (housing price) | [132] | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Reasons for choosing current residence (proximity to work) | [132] | – | 1/1 = 100% | – | |
Family chose kindergarten | [66]* | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Absence of garden | [32] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Maintenance of houses | [33] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Home yard | ∅ | ||||
Size | ∅ | 2/3 = 67% | |||
[116]* | + | 1/3 = 33% | |||
Natural features and play areas | [36] | ∅ | 5/7 = 71% | ||
Portable equipment | [36] | ∅ | |||
Lawn quality | [36] | ∅ | |||
Flowers | [36] | ∅ | |||
Herbs and vegetables | [36] | ∅ | |||
Fixed equipment | [36] | + | 2/7 = 29% | ||
Number of items of outdoor play equipment | [116]* | + | |||
Presence of labor-saving devices | [116]* | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Number of electronic devices in the household | [32] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Electronic devices in child’s bedroom | [32] | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
INSTITUTIONAL (12 identified3/44 examined3) | |||||
Timing | ‘ + ’ (1/3): Scheduling for study | ||||
Time of the day | ∅ | 2/2 = 100% | ∅ | ||
Scheduling for study (partial study > morning/full study > afternoon study) | [38] | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Days of the week (weekday) | ∅ | 3/5 = 60% | ∅ | ||
[64]* | + | 1/5 = 20% | |||
[86]PA* | – | 1/5 = 20% | |||
Childcare/school environment | ‘ + ’ (5/41): Hours in ECEC, ≥ 50% of educators with level 2/3 certification in ECECa, number of play areas in ECECa, % time on child-centered practices in ECEC, receiving free lunch at school ‘ − ’ (6/41): % small class activities, play space-school, child density, supervising teachersc, recess duration, ground surfacec | ||||
ECEC | |||||
Attending daycare/childcare/kindergarten | ∅ | 5/7 = 72% | ∅∅ | ||
– | 2/7 = 28% | ||||
Duration in ECEC care | [66]* | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Class size | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | ||
Teacher’s education level (postgraduate or higher) | [66]* | – | 1/2 = 50% | ? | |
[63]PA* | + | 1/2 = 50% | |||
Hours received teacher’s aid | [66]* | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Number of educators (part-time) | [105] | ∅ | 2/2 = 100% | ∅ | |
Number of educators (full-time) | [105] | ∅ | |||
≥ 50% of educators with level 2/3 certification | [105] | ∅ | 1/2 = 50% | +? | |
[105] | + | 1/2 = 50% | |||
Accreditation status | [105] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Centre location (rural vs large) | [105] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Professional development frequency | [105] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Professional development topics | [105] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Family education frequency | [105] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Family education topics | [105] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Space to run | [105] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Play areas | [105] | ∅ | 1/2 = 50% | +? | |
[105] | + | 1/2 = 50% | |||
Portable play equipment | [105] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Equipment availability | [105] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Amount of equipment | [105] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Written policy | [105] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Policy components | [105] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
% whole class activities | [66]* | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
% small class activities | [66]* | – | 1/1 = 100% | – | |
% time on child-centered practices | [66]* | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
% time on teacher-centered practices | [66]* | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Play group or other education program | [130] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
School | |||||
School type (Public) | ∅ | 2/2 = 100% | ∅ | ||
School-level ethnic density | [39]PA | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Free lunch | [77]PA | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Special lunch program | [132] | + | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Play space-school | [132] | – | 1/1 = 100% | – | |
Summer camps | [63]PA* | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
After school programs | [63]PA* | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
School playground environment during recess | |||||
Child density (number of children/m2) | [48]PA* | – | 1/1 = 100% | – | |
Presence of less supervising teachers | [48]PA*c:boy | ∅ | 1/2 = 50% | −? | |
[48]PA*c:girl | – | 1/2 = 50% | |||
Recess duration | [48]PA* | – | 1/1 = 100% | – | |
Aiming equipment | [48]PA* | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Playing equipment | [48]PA* | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Hard ground surface | [48]PA*c:girl | ∅ | 1/2 = 50% | −? | |
[48]PA*c:boy | – | 1/2 = 50% | |||
Ground markings | [48]PA* | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Vegetation | [48]PA* | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Height differences | [48]PA* | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Toys | [48]PA* | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
MACROSYSTEM DIMENSIONS/COMMUNITY (28 identified3/98 examined3) | |||||
Built environment | ‘ + ’ (13/70): Number of learning centers, play space, open space, yard, playground, sidewalks, pedestrian amenities, neighborhood greenness, % of segments with low volume roads, traffic calming measure, roundabouts, % distance to kindergarten, distance to nature, aesthetics ‘ − ’ (6/70): walkability score, # of segments with path obstruction, density of crashes, density of intersections, nuisance, neighborhood physical disorder | ||||
General environmental characteristics | |||||
General impression | [33] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Type of neighborhood (city green) | [32] (city green or town center) | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
GIS-based PA environment | [119]PA | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Physical environment constraint | [104] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Availability | |||||
Number of formal OP facilities per km2 | [33] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Number of learning centers | [66]* | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Recreation/PA/sport facilities | ∅ | 3/5 = 60% | +? | ||
+ | 2/5 = 40% | ||||
Play space | [104] | ∅ | 1/3 = 33% | + | |
+ | 2/3 = 67% | ||||
Open space | [45] | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Green space | ∅ | 2/2 = 100% | ∅ | ||
Garden and parks | ∅ | 2/3 = 67% | ∅ | ||
[44] | – | 1/3 = 33% | |||
Water | ∅ | 2/3 = 67% | ∅ | ||
[132] | + | 1/3 = 33% | |||
Yard | [92] | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Playground | [92] | ∅ | 1/3 = 33% | +? | |
+ | 2/3 = 67% | ||||
Local shops, restaurants, shopping centers, playgrounds, and open spaces | ∅ | 2/3 = 67% | ∅ | ||
[60]b:weekend | + | 1/3 = 33% | |||
Travel/Traffic | |||||
Bike lanes | [33] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Sidewalks | [60] | ∅ | 1/2 = 50% | +? | |
[33] | + | 1/2 = 50% | |||
Walkability | [131] | ∅ | 1/2 = 50% | −? | |
[88] | – | 1/2 = 50% | |||
Pedestrian crossings with traffic lights | [33]a,c: age 4-6 girls; [33]a,c: 7-9 boys,; [33]a,c: 10-12 girls; [33]a,c: 10-12 boys | ∅ | 4/6 = 67% | ∅∅ | |
[33]a,c: age 7-9 girls | – | 1/6 = 17% | |||
[33]a,c: age 4-6 boys | + | 1/6 = 17% | |||
Pedestrian crossings without traffic lights | [33]a,c: age 4-6 boys; [33]a,c: 7-9 girls,; [33]a,c: 10-12 girls; [33]a,c: 10-12boys | ∅ | 4/6 = 67% | ∅∅ | |
+ | 2/6 = 33% | ||||
Pedestrian amenities | [88] | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Proportion of segments with path obstruction | [88] | – | 1/1 = 100% | – | |
Proportion of segments with low volume roads | [88]c: girls | ∅ | 1/2 = 50% | +? | |
[88]c: boys | + | 1/2 = 50% | |||
Traffic lights | [33] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Traffic calming | [61] | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Refuges/safety islands | [33] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Parallel parking spaces | [33] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Parking lots | [33] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Speed bumps | [33] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Home zones | [33] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
30 km/h zones | [33] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Roundabouts | [33] | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Continuity of the road | [134] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Stop at the side of the road | [134] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Density of crashes | [132] | – | 1/1 = 100% | – | |
Density of intersections | – | 2/2 = 100% | – | ||
Traffic volume and speed | ∅ | 3/3 = 100% | ∅ | ||
Traffic safety | ∅ | 5/8 = 50% | ∅ | ||
– | 2/8 = 25% | ||||
[104]c: girls | + | 1/8 = 13% | |||
Traffic accessibility | [134] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Distance to facilities | [32] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Distance to kindergarten | [66]* | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Distance to school | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | ||
Distance to nature | [85]* | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Distance to park | [60] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Distance to best friends’ house | [104] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Distance to stores | [119]PA* | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Distance to play areas | [119]PA* | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Quality | |||||
OP facilities | ∅ | 2/2 = 100% | ∅ | ||
Green space | [33] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Neighborhood greenness | [67]PA | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Water | ∅ | 2/2 = 100% | ∅ | ||
Sidewalks | ∅ | 3/3 = 100% | ∅ | ||
Bike lanes | ∅ | 2/2 = 100% | ∅ | ||
Good parks/playgrounds | ∅ | 2/2 = 100% | ∅ | ||
Diversity of routes | [32] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Satisfaction with play facilities | [32] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Satisfaction with public green spaces | [32] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Functionality | [112] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Aesthetics | [104] | ∅ | 1/2 = 50% | + | |
[119]PA | + | 1/2 = 50% | |||
Attractiveness | ∅ | 2/2 = 100% | ∅ | ||
Dog walking area | [33] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Litter basket for dog waste | [33] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Trash/litter | [32] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Dog waste | [32] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Graffiti | [33] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Vandalism | [33] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Dark spaces | [33] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Nuisance | [104]c: boys | ∅ | 1/2 = 50% | −? | |
[104]c: girls | – | 1/2 = 50% | |||
Neighborhood physical disorder | [82] | – | 1/1 = 100% | – | |
Sociocultural environment | ‘ + ’ (5/17): Social norm, social cohesion, neighbourhood relationships, child friendliness, media message promoting active transport ‘ − ’ (1/17): Social safety | ||||
Social norm for PA | [104] | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Social safety | [32] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
[60] | – | 1/1 = 100% | – | ||
Social cohesion | [32] | ∅ | 1/2 = 50% | +? | |
[60] | + | 1/2 = 50% | |||
Satisfaction with social contact | [32] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Neighborhood collective efficacy | [62] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Neighborhood relationships | [134] | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Neighborhood SES | ∅ | 2/2 = 100% | ∅ | ||
Neighborhood ethnic density | [39] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Neighborhood poverty | [82] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Neighborhood deprivation | ∅ | 3/3 = 100% | ∅ | ||
Good neighborhood to bring up child | [122] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Neighborhood safety | ∅ | 10/11 = 91% | ∅ | ||
[61] | + | 1/11 = 9% | |||
Safety without supervision | [111] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Safe for outdoor play | [131] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Neighborhood crime | [122] | ∅ | 1/3 = 33% | ∅ | |
[61] | + | 1/3 = 33% | |||
[44] | – | 1/3 = 33% | |||
Child friendliness | [111] | ∅ | 1/2 = 50% | +? | |
[99]* | + | 1/2 = 50% | |||
Media message promoting walking/biking to school | [132] | + | 1/1 = 100 | + | |
Playground environment | ‘ + ’ (2/11): Play facility provision, feature densityc ‘ − ’ (1/11): Naturalness | ||||
Physical | |||||
Density | [109] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Size | [108] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Aesthetics | [108] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Cleanliness | [108] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Play facility quality | [108] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Division of functional areas | [108] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Provision of multi-purpose areas | [108] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Playground improvement made | [30] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Naturalness | [108] | – | 1/1 = 100% | – | |
Play facility provision | [108] | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Feature density | [35]PA*c:boy | ∅ | 1/2 = 50% | +? | |
[35]PA*c:girl | + | 1/2 = 50% | |||
Social | ∅∅ | ||||
Group size | [109] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ||
Presence of active children | [109] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ||
Presence of same sex children | [109] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ||
Presence of opposite sex children | [109] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ||
Presence of same sex adults | [109] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ||
Presences of opposite sex adults | [109] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ||
PHYSCIAL ECOLOGY/PRESSURE FOR MACROSYSTEM CHANGE (5 identified3/12 examined3) | |||||
Season (Fall/Winter) | [112]* | ∅ | 1/7 = 14% | −− | ‘ + ’ (3/12): Temperature, % of high-intensity development, population size of municipality ‘ − ’ (2/12): Season (Fall/Winter), COVID-19 |
– | 6/7 = 86% | ||||
Temperature | [85]* | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Daylight time | [104] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Environmental coordination | [134] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Environmental safety | [134] | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Region (coastal) | [89]* | ∅ | 1/1 = 100% | ∅ | |
Mixed land use | ∅ | 2/2 = 100% | ∅ | ||
% of high-intensity development | [132] | + | 1/1 = 100% | + | |
Population size of municipality | [131] | ∅ | 1/2 = 50% | +? | |
[61] | + | 1/2 = 50% | |||
Rurality (vs suburban and/or urban) | [125]*, [32, 33, 61] (residential density), [78] (with parents working in large cities), [89]*, [99]* | ∅ | 7/10 = 70% | ∅∅ | |
+ | 3/10 = 30% | ||||
COVID-19 | [98]* | – | 1/1 = 100% | – | |
Country membership | [49]* | Poland > Denmark > Italy |