Advertisement

Journal of Public Health

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 77–88 | Cite as

Exploring cross-generational physical activity: who are the gate-keepers?

  • K. FreireEmail author
  • J. Coyle
  • R. Pope
Original Article

Abstract

Aim

Little is known about how parents and children perform physical activity together. Parents are described as gate-keepers of children’s physical activity. We explored gate-keeping in cross-generational physical activity from child, parent, and family perspectives.

Methods

A qualitative methodology was employed. Children and parents took part in semi-structured focus groups, family unit interviews, and individual interviews. Data was analysed thematically.

Results

The starting of cross-generational physical activity involved co-construction. Participants were found to instigate and respond to invitations from their physical activity partners. Child participants were found to employ several strategies to influence their parents and open-the-gate on physical activity. In contrast, stopping cross-generational physical activity only required one participant to stop the physical activity for the physical activity to cease, and child participants volunteered no strategies to influence their parents during the stopping of cross-generational physical activity.

Conclusion

Children of this age group were not passive recipients of parental gate-keeping in cross-generational physical activity. Cross-generational recreation, sport, and exercise was co-constructed by interplay between the child and parent. Physical activity health promotion policy and practice should recognise and promote the roles that both children and parents plays in the instigation of, and engagement in cross-generational physical activity.

Keywords

Cross-generational physical activity Child Parent Ecological model Qualitative research Gate-keeping 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank all the participants for sharing their experiences, the NSW Department of Education for permitting their schools to engage with the study, and each of the schools, both public and independent, for their engagement with the research.

Funding

the authors declare that no funding or grants were obtained for the study. The study was part of the corresponding author’s PhD program of research, which was funded by a scholarship from the university that the author is associated with.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011) Australian social trends June 2011, sport and physical recreation (No 4102.0). Australian Bureau of Statistics, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  2. Beets M, Cardinal B, Alderman B (2010) Parental social support and the physical activity related behaviours of youth: a review. Health Educ Behav 37:621–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belanger-Gravel A, Gauvin L, Lagarde F, Laferte M (2015) Correlates and moderators of physical activity in parent-tween dyads: a socio-ecological perspective. Pub Health 7:1218–1223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bellows-Reicken K, Rhodes R (2008) A birth of inactivity? A review of physical activity and parenthood. Prev Med 46:99–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brockman R, Jago R, Fox K, Thompson J, Cartwright K, Page A (2009) ‘Get off the sofa and go and play’: Family and socio-economic influences on the physical activity of 10–11 year old children. BMC Pub Health 9:253–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bronfenbrenner U (1989) Ecological systems theory. Volume 6. JAI Press, Greenwich CTGoogle Scholar
  7. Davison K, Cutting T, Birch L (2003) Parents’ activity-related parenting practices predict girls’ physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 35:1589–1595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dunton G, Liao Y, Almanza E, Jerrett M, Spruijt-Metz D, Chou C-P, Pentz A (2012) Joint physical activity and sedentary behavior in parent–child pairs. Med Sci Sports Exerc 44:1473–1480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Epstein L, Smith J, Vara L, Rodefer J (1991) Behavioural economic analysis of activity choice in obese children. Health Psychol 10:311–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fleming V, Gaidys U, Robb Y (2003) Hermeneutic research in nursing: developing a Gadamerian-based research method. Nurs Inq 10:113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Flurry L (2007) Children’s influence in family decision-making: examining the impact of the changing American family. J Bus Res 60:322–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guba E, Lincoln Y (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin N, Lincoln Y (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 105–107Google Scholar
  13. Gustafson S, Rhodes R (2006) Parental correlates of physical activity in children and early adolescents. Sports Med 36:79–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haye K, de Heer H, Wilkinson A, Koehly L (2014) Predictors of parent-child relationships that support physical activity in Mexican-American families. J Behav Med 37:234–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hesketh K, Waters E, Green J, Salmon L, Williams J (2005) Healthy eating, activity and obesity prevention: a qualitative study of parent and child perceptions in Australia. Health Promot Int 20:19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Horstman M, Aldiss S, Richardson A, Gordon F (2008) Methodological issues when using the draw and write technique with children aged 6 to 12 years. Qual Health Res 18:1001–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. James A, Jenks C, Prout A (1998) Childhood in social space. In: James A, Chris J, Prout A (eds) Theorizing childhood. Sage Publications, London, pp 37–58Google Scholar
  18. Liamputtong P (2006) Researching the vulnerable: a guide to sensitive research methods. Sage Publications, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  19. Martens L, Southerton D, Scott S (2004) Bringing children (and parents) into the sociology of consumption. J Cons Cult 4:155–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Patton M (2002) Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  21. Prout A, James A (1990) A new paradigm for the sociology of childhood? In: James A, Prout A (eds) Constructing and reconstructing childhood: Contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood. The Flamer Press, London, pp 7–31Google Scholar
  22. Pugliese J, Tinsley B (2007) Parental socialization of child and adolescent physical activity: a meta-analysis. J Fam Psychol 21:331–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rhodes R, Naylor P, McKay H (2010) Pilot study of a family physical activity planning intervention among parents and their children. J Behav Med 33:91–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rhodes R, Lim C (2017) Promoting parent and child physical activity together: elicitation of potential intervention targets and preferences. Health Educ Behav 45(1):112-123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schranz N, Olds T, Cliff D et al (2014) Results from Australia’s 2014 report card on physical activity for children and youth. J Phys Act Health 11:S21–S25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stanley R, Boshoff K, Dollman J (2013) A qualitative exploration of the ‘critical window’: factors affecting Australian children’s after-school physical activity. J Phys Act Health 10:33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tremblay M (2014) Global summit on the physical activity of children. J Phys Act Health 11:S1–S2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (1989) Convention on the rights of the child. http://wwwohchrorg/en/professionalinterest/pages/crcaspx Accessed 21 June 2013
  29. World Health Organisation (2004) Global strategy on diet, physical activity and health http://wwwwhoint/dietphysicalactivity/goals/en/ Accessed 22 June 2013
  30. Wright M, Wilson D, Giffin S, Evans A (2010) A qualitative study of parent modelling and social support for physical activity in underserved adolescents. Health Educ Res 25:224–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yao C, Rhodes R (2015) Parental correlates in child and adolescent physical activity: a meta-analysis. Int J Behav Nut Phys Act 12:10CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Charles Sturt UniversityThurgoonaAustralia
  2. 2.University of WollongongWollongongAustralia
  3. 3.School of Community HealthCharles Sturt UniversityThurgoonaAustralia

Personalised recommendations