IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i7p3993-d781002.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Children’s Voices in Physical Activity Research: A Qualitative Review and Synthesis of UK Children’s Perspectives

Author

Listed:
  • Lydia Emm-Collison

    (Centre for Exercise, Nutrition & Health Sciences, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TZ, UK)

  • Rosina Cross

    (Department for Health, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK)

  • Maria Garcia Gonzalez

    (Centre for Exercise, Nutrition & Health Sciences, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TZ, UK
    Current address: Bristol Children’s Vaccine Centre, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol BS2 8AE, UK.)

  • Debbie Watson

    (Children and Families Research Centre, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TZ, UK)

  • Charlie Foster

    (Centre for Exercise, Nutrition & Health Sciences, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TZ, UK)

  • Russell Jago

    (Centre for Exercise, Nutrition & Health Sciences, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TZ, UK)

Abstract

Background: Physical activity during childhood is associated with multiple short- and long-term health benefits. Physical activity levels decline throughout primary school emphasising a need for effective strategies to promote more activity in children. Children have rarely been involved in the intervention development process. This gap is an important omission and there is much to be learnt from existing qualitative studies with children, which could serve as a starting point for specific projects. This systematic review aimed to synthesise qualitative studies with primary school children in the United Kingdom to identify children’s perspectives on why physical activity is important, the factors that influence their physical activity and what they like when it comes to physical activity. Methods: A search of seven databases (conducted in October 2019) identified 26 papers for inclusion. Data extraction and synthesis were conducted using qualitative thematic synthesis. The quality of papers was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist for qualitative research. Results: Across the diverse range of studies, several key themes were identified in relation to the three research questions. Children have a comprehensive understanding of the various benefits of physical activity, including benefits for health, fitness and skills development. A range of social agents and practical issues influence children’s physical activity, with friend and peer influences being particularly salient. Most children like to have choice over the activities they undertake and the opportunities for creative physical play such as making up active games. Conclusions: The findings suggest that future interventions should utilize peer relationships, ensure a variety of activities are offered to cater to a broad range of children’s physical activity preferences and incorporate child-led activities where possible. The included studies also highlight a need for more diversity in qualitative research in this area, particularly in terms of ethnicity and age, and combining traditional qualitative methods with creative methods, such as photography, may provide richer insights than when using a single mode of data collection. We also highlight several methodological challenges, and in particular, the need for greater acknowledgement of the role of the researcher in qualitative work with children.

Suggested Citation

  • Lydia Emm-Collison & Rosina Cross & Maria Garcia Gonzalez & Debbie Watson & Charlie Foster & Russell Jago, 2022. "Children’s Voices in Physical Activity Research: A Qualitative Review and Synthesis of UK Children’s Perspectives," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-23, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:7:p:3993-:d:781002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/7/3993/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/7/3993/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ruth Salway & Lydia Emm-Collison & Simon J. Sebire & Janice L. Thompson & Deborah A. Lawlor & Russell Jago, 2019. "A Multilevel Analysis of Neighbourhood, School, Friend and Individual-Level Variation in Primary School Children’s Physical Activity," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-16, December.
    2. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. İlkay Unay-Gailhard & Mark A. Brennen, 2022. "How digital communications contribute to shaping the career paths of youth: a review study focused on farming as a career option," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1491-1508, December.
    2. Mahin Ghafari & Vali Baigi & Zahra Cheraghi & Amin Doosti-Irani, 2016. "The Prevalence of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Iranian Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-10, June.
    3. Elizabeth T Cafiero-Fonseca & Andrew Stawasz & Sydney T Johnson & Reiko Sato & David E Bloom, 2017. "The full benefits of adult pneumococcal vaccination: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, October.
    4. Santos Urbina & Sofía Villatoro & Jesús Salinas, 2021. "Self-Regulated Learning and Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments in Higher Education: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-12, June.
    5. Oded Berger-Tal & Alison L Greggor & Biljana Macura & Carrie Ann Adams & Arden Blumenthal & Amos Bouskila & Ulrika Candolin & Carolina Doran & Esteban Fernández-Juricic & Kiyoko M Gotanda & Catherine , 2019. "Systematic reviews and maps as tools for applying behavioral ecology to management and policy," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 30(1), pages 1-8.
    6. Nadine Desrochers & Adèle Paul‐Hus & Jen Pecoskie, 2017. "Five decades of gratitude: A meta‐synthesis of acknowledgments research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2821-2833, December.
    7. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    8. Xue-Ying Xu & Hong Kong & Rui-Xiang Song & Yu-Han Zhai & Xiao-Fei Wu & Wen-Si Ai & Hong-Bo Liu, 2014. "The Effectiveness of Noninvasive Biomarkers to Predict Hepatitis B-Related Significant Fibrosis and Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-16, June.
    9. Vicente Miñana-Signes & Manuel Monfort-Pañego & Javier Valiente, 2021. "Teaching Back Health in the School Setting: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-18, January.
    10. Agnieszka A. Tubis & Katarzyna Grzybowska, 2022. "In Search of Industry 4.0 and Logistics 4.0 in Small-Medium Enterprises—A State of the Art Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-26, November.
    11. Obsa Urgessa Ayana & Jima Degaga, 2022. "Effects of rural electrification on household welfare: a meta-regression analysis," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 69(2), pages 209-261, June.
    12. Caloffi, Annalisa & Colovic, Ana & Rizzoli, Valentina & Rossi, Federica, 2023. "Innovation intermediaries' types and functions: A computational analysis of the literature," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    13. García-Poole, Chloe & Byrne, Sonia & Rodrigo, María José, 2019. "How do communities intervene with adolescents at psychosocial risk? A systematic review of positive development programs," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 194-209.
    14. Jie Zhao & Ji Chen & Damien Beillouin & Hans Lambers & Yadong Yang & Pete Smith & Zhaohai Zeng & Jørgen E. Olesen & Huadong Zang, 2022. "Global systematic review with meta-analysis reveals yield advantage of legume-based rotations and its drivers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    15. Qing Ye & Bao-Xin Qian & Wei-Li Yin & Feng-Mei Wang & Tao Han, 2016. "Association between the HFE C282Y, H63D Polymorphisms and the Risks of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, Liver Cirrhosis and Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis o," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, September.
    16. Bishal Mohindru & David Turner & Tracey Sach & Diana Bilton & Siobhan Carr & Olga Archangelidi & Arjun Bhadhuri & Jennifer A. Whitty, 2020. "Health State Utility Data in Cystic Fibrosis: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 13-25, March.
    17. Subramaniam, Mega & Pang, Natalie & Morehouse, Shandra & Asgarali-Hoffman, S. Nisa, 2020. "Examining vulnerability in youth digital information practices scholarship: What are we missing or exhausting?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    18. Neal R. Haddaway & Matthew J. Page & Chris C. Pritchard & Luke A. McGuinness, 2022. "PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.
    19. Ding Zhu & Mindan Wu & Yuan Cao & Shihua Lin & Nanxia Xuan & Chen Zhu & Wen Li & Huahao Shen, 2018. "Heated humidification did not improve compliance of positive airway pressure and subjective daytime sleepiness in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: A meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-16, December.
    20. Pelai, Ricardo & Hagerman, Shannon M. & Kozak, Robert, 2020. "Biotechnologies in agriculture and forestry: Governance insights from a comparative systematic review of barriers and recommendations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:7:p:3993-:d:781002. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.