Johannes Carl1, Jaime Barratt2, Philipp Wanner3, Clemens Töpfer4, John Cairney2, Klaus Pfeifer5. 1. Department of Sport Science and Sport, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Gebbertstraße 123b, 91058, Erlangen, Germany. johannes.carl@fau.de. 2. School of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, 4072, Australia. 3. Institute of Sports and Sports Sciences, Ruprecht Karl University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 700, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Institute of Sports Science, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Seidelstraße 20, 07749, Jena, Germany. 5. Department of Sport Science and Sport, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Gebbertstraße 123b, 91058, Erlangen, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The holistic concept of physical literacy assumes that individuals require adequate cognitive (knowledge and understanding), affective (motivation and confidence), and physical (physical competence) qualities to engage in lifelong physical activity behavior. In recent years, the research field has undergone rapid development and has also yielded an increasing number of interventions that aim to translate the theoretical-philosophical ideas into practical endeavors. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the present pre-registered systematic review was to (a) provide a general overview of evaluation studies on physical literacy interventions and (b) to quantitatively examine the effectiveness of physical literacy interventions. METHODS: Drawing on the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched a total of 18 databases for physical literacy interventions. Inclusion criteria were English language, publication by November 2021, and interventions using physical literacy as a theoretical underpinning or evaluation outcome. Articles that met these criteria were analyzed with respect to their basic delivery characteristics, study quality, evaluation approach, and main findings. We additionally ran meta-analyses with all non-randomized and randomized controlled trials to examine and compare the effect of these interventions on five outcome categories: (i) physical competence, (ii) motivation and confidence, (iii) knowledge and understanding, (iv) physical activity behavior, and (v) total physical literacy. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess the effects on the different categories. RESULTS: The screening process with two independent raters yielded 48 eligible interventions reported in 51 eligible articles. Quantitative evaluations most frequently addressed physical competence (72.2%), followed by motivation and confidence (47.2%), physical activity behavior (41.7%), and knowledge and understanding (33.3%). The controlled intervention studies (n = 24) exerted significant effects on all five physical literacy categories. Despite meaningful heterogeneity across the subgroups, the strongest effects were found for physical competence (SMD 0.90; 95% CI 0.55-1.25), followed by physical literacy aggregate scores (SMD 0.61; 95% CI 0.20-1.01), knowledge and understanding (SMD 0.54; 95% CI 0.30-0.79), physical activity behavior (SMD 0.39; 95% CI 0.23-0.55), and motivation and confidence (SMD 0.30; 95% CI 0.17-0.44). CONCLUSIONS: The present study empirically demonstrated the effectiveness of physical literacy interventions on several outcomes relevant for promoting physical activity and health. To better inform current practices, future studies are advised to identify those program characteristics that significantly influence the effectiveness of physical literacy interventions. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020188926.
BACKGROUND: The holistic concept of physical literacy assumes that individuals require adequate cognitive (knowledge and understanding), affective (motivation and confidence), and physical (physical competence) qualities to engage in lifelong physical activity behavior. In recent years, the research field has undergone rapid development and has also yielded an increasing number of interventions that aim to translate the theoretical-philosophical ideas into practical endeavors. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the present pre-registered systematic review was to (a) provide a general overview of evaluation studies on physical literacy interventions and (b) to quantitatively examine the effectiveness of physical literacy interventions. METHODS: Drawing on the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched a total of 18 databases for physical literacy interventions. Inclusion criteria were English language, publication by November 2021, and interventions using physical literacy as a theoretical underpinning or evaluation outcome. Articles that met these criteria were analyzed with respect to their basic delivery characteristics, study quality, evaluation approach, and main findings. We additionally ran meta-analyses with all non-randomized and randomized controlled trials to examine and compare the effect of these interventions on five outcome categories: (i) physical competence, (ii) motivation and confidence, (iii) knowledge and understanding, (iv) physical activity behavior, and (v) total physical literacy. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to assess the effects on the different categories. RESULTS: The screening process with two independent raters yielded 48 eligible interventions reported in 51 eligible articles. Quantitative evaluations most frequently addressed physical competence (72.2%), followed by motivation and confidence (47.2%), physical activity behavior (41.7%), and knowledge and understanding (33.3%). The controlled intervention studies (n = 24) exerted significant effects on all five physical literacy categories. Despite meaningful heterogeneity across the subgroups, the strongest effects were found for physical competence (SMD 0.90; 95% CI 0.55-1.25), followed by physical literacy aggregate scores (SMD 0.61; 95% CI 0.20-1.01), knowledge and understanding (SMD 0.54; 95% CI 0.30-0.79), physical activity behavior (SMD 0.39; 95% CI 0.23-0.55), and motivation and confidence (SMD 0.30; 95% CI 0.17-0.44). CONCLUSIONS: The present study empirically demonstrated the effectiveness of physical literacy interventions on several outcomes relevant for promoting physical activity and health. To better inform current practices, future studies are advised to identify those program characteristics that significantly influence the effectiveness of physical literacy interventions. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020188926.
Authors: Leah E Robinson; David F Stodden; Lisa M Barnett; Vitor P Lopes; Samuel W Logan; Luis Paulo Rodrigues; Eva D'Hondt Journal: Sports Med Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Cara Shearer; Hannah R Goss; Lynne M Boddy; Zoe R Knowles; Elizabeth J Durden-Myers; Lawrence Foweather Journal: Sports Med Open Date: 2021-05-27
Authors: Katie Cornish; Gloria Fox; Trina Fyfe; Erica Koopmans; Anne Pousette; Chelsea A Pelletier Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2020-10-19 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Peter Elsborg; Clara Heinze; Paulina S Melby; Glen Nielsen; Peter Bentsen; Knud Ryom Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-06-29 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Gareth R Jones; Liza Stathokostas; Bradley W Young; Andrew V Wister; Shirley Chau; Patricia Clark; Mary Duggan; Drew Mitchell; Peter Nordland Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2018-01-16 Impact factor: 3.921