Prevalence of Active Play in Brazilian children and adolescents: an updated systematic review for the Brazil´s Report Card

Abstract

– This paper is an update of the systematic review on Active Play published in 2018 by Mendes et al. This systematic review included studies published between 2018 and 2019. The search for potential articles was performed on the following electronic databases: Pubmed/Medline, Web of Science, Bireme, Scielo and Scopus. Initially, 471 papers met the eligibility criteria. However, after deeply analyzed, only two studies remained and were included in the present review. From these articles only one presented individual information on play activity among adolescents age (12-17 years) from Curitiba-PR and it reveals that 77,2% of them were physically active in their free time. The other study included was about the preferences for leisure activities among adolescents from Florianopolis-SC participants in two cross sectional studies in 2001 and 2011. It showed a significant reduction in the preferences for practicing physical activities, while the opposite occurs with sedentary activities like watching TV, playing video games, and using computers. These results along with the inconsistencies in benchmarks of the domain active play among countries involved in the Global Matrix 3.0 made clear the necessity of a standard definition and a proper tool to measure it.

Results from Brazil’s 2022 Report Card on Physical Activity for Children and Adolescents

“…Another interesting aspect is that only 3 out of 10 Brazilian children and adolescents spend up to two hours a day in front of a screen, and most of the findings use subjective measures [ 12 ]. For Active Play, six studies that were restricted to analyzing the fact of playing or not playing did not specify the time spent on activities [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 ], which limits the proposition of strategies for guiding educators and stakeholders.…”

“…The protocol for this research was published on the Open Science Framework (OSF) platform ( , accessed on 1 March 2022). To gather the best evidence available in Brazil on each indicator, the following strategies were adopted: Fourteen systematic reviews were conducted [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ], covering the following indicators: (1) Overall Physical Activity; (2) Organized Sport and Physical Activity; (3) Active Play; (4) Active Transportation; (5) Sedentary Behaviors; (6) Sleep; (7) Family and Peers; (8) Community and Environment; (9) Physical Fitness; (10) Obesity; (11) Poor Mental Health. In all systematic reviews, only studies with a sample of Brazilian children and adolescents published until December 2019—that is, before the COVID-19 pandemic—were considered eligible.…”

“…The target age for the samples investigated in the systematic reviews of this current report was adolescent children aged 5 to 19 years. All details about the samples can be consulted in previously published articles [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ]; For the School indicator, an original study [ 26 ] was conducted with public data from the National Institute for Educational Studies and Research Anísio Teixeira (INEP); For the indicator related to Governmental Strategies and Investments, analyses were based on official information from the Brazilian Federal Government, in which official websites of the different Ministries in Brazil, national surveys of the federal government, and technical reports on the subject were researched. One paper about this indicator has been published [ 27 ].…”

“…The target age for the samples investigated in the systematic reviews of this current report was adolescent children aged 5 to 19 years. All details about the samples can be consulted in previously published articles [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ];…”

“…Furthermore, in all articles, the results are discussed in depth, and improvement strategies for each indicator are presented. The articles were published in peer-reviewed and open access journals [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ].…”