No 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: Motor learning is impaired in Parkinson’s disease (PD), with patients demonstrating deficits in skill acquisition (online learning) and consolidation (offline learning) compared to healthy adults of similar age. Recent studies in young adults suggest that single bouts of aerobic exercise (AEX), performed in close temporal proximity to practicing a new motor task, may facilitate motor skill learning. Thus, we aimed at investigating the effects of a single bout of aerobic cycling on online and offline learning in PD patients.Methods: 17 PD patients (Hoehn and Yahr 1 – 2.5, age: 64.4 ± 6.2) participated in this crossover study. Immediately prior to practicing a novel balance task, patients either performed 30 min of (i) moderate intensity (60–70% VO2max) aerobic cycling, or (ii) seated rest (order counterbalanced). The task required patients to stabilize a balance platform (stabilometer) in a horizontal position for 30 s. For each experimental condition, patients performed 15 acquisition trials, followed by a retention test 24 h later. We calculated time in balance (platform within ± 5° from horizontal) for each trial, and analyzed within- and between-subjects differences in skill acquisition (online learning) and skill retention (offline learning) using mixed repeated-measures ANOVA.Results: We found that the exercise bout had no effect on performance level or online gains during acquisition, despite affecting the time course of skill improvements (larger initial and reduced late skill gains). Aerobic cycling significantly improved offline learning, as reflected by larger 24-h skill retention compared to the rest condition.Conclusion: Our results suggest that a single bout of moderate-intensity AEX is effective in improving motor skill consolidation in PD patients. Thus, acute exercise may represent an effective strategy to enhance motor memory formation in this population. More work is necessary to understand the underlying mechanisms, the optimal scheduling of exercise, and the applicability to other motor tasks. Further, the potential for patients in later disease stages need to be investigated. The study was a priori registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03245216).

No abstract