Wearable activity trackers (wearables) embed numerous behaviour change techniques (BCTs) that have previously been shown to increase adult physical activity (PA). With few children and adolescents achieving PA guidelines, it is crucial to explore ways to increase their PA. This systematic review examined the acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness of wearables and their potential mechanisms of action for increasing PA in 5 to 19-year-olds. A systematic search of six databases was conducted, including data from the start date of each database to December 2019 (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020164506). Thirty-three studies were included. Most studies (70%) included only adolescents (10 to 19 years). There was some—but largely mixed—evidence that wearables increase steps and moderate-to-vigorous-intensity PA and reduce sedentary behaviour. There were no apparent differences in effectiveness based on the number of BCTs used and between studies using a wearable alone or as part of a multi-component intervention. Qualitative findings suggested wearables increased motivation to be physically active via self-monitoring, goal setting, feedback, and competition. However, children and adolescents reported technical difficulties and a novelty effect when using wearables, which may impact wearables’ long-term use. More rigorous and long-term studies investigating the acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness of wearables in 5 to 19-year-olds are warranted.

Background: The family environment plays a crucial role in child physical activity (PA). Wearable activity trackers (wearables) show potential for increasing children’s PA; however, few studies have explored families’ acceptance of wearables. This study investigated the acceptability of using wearables in a family setting, aligning experiences with components of the Technology Acceptance Model and Theoretical Domains Framework. Methods: Twenty-four families, with children aged 5–9 years, took part in a 5-week study, where all members were provided with a Fitbit Alta HR for 4 weeks. Acceptability was measured using weekly surveys and pre-post-questionnaires. Nineteen families participated in a focus group. Quantitative and qualitative data were integrated using the Pillar Integration Process technique. Results: Pillars reflected (1) external variables impacting wearable use and PA and (2) wearable use, (3) ease of use, (4) usefulness for increasing PA and other health outcomes, (5) attitudes, and (6) intention to use a wearable, including future intervention suggestions. Conclusions: Families found the Fitbit easy to use and acceptable, but use varied, and perceived impact on PA were mixed, with external variables contributing towards this. This study provides insights into how wearables may be integrated into family-based PA interventions and highlights barriers and facilitators of family wearable use.

Background Research suggests that children identified with impaired motor skills can respond well to intensive therapeutic interventions delivered via occupational and physical therapy services. There is, however, a need to explore alternative approaches to delivering interventions outside traditional referral‐based clinic settings because limited resources mean such health services often struggle to meet demand. This review sets out to systematically assess the evidence for and against school‐based interventions targeted at improving the motor skills of children aged between 3 and 12 years old. Method Five electronic databases were searched systematically (AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane, Medline, and PsycINFO) for peer‐reviewed articles published between January 2012 and July 2018. Studies were eligible if they implemented a school‐based motor skill intervention with a randomized or case‐controlled trial design that objectively measured motor skills as an outcome, which were not specific to an athletic or sporting skill. Participants had to be aged between 3 and 12 years old and free from neurological disorders known to affect muscle function. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Results Twenty‐three studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies encompassed interventions targeted at training: fundamental movement skills, handwriting, fine, and global motor skills. The majority of these studies reported beneficial impact on motor function specifically, but some interventions also assessed subsequent impacts on activity and participation (but not well‐being). A number of the studies had methodological shortcomings that means these results need to be interpreted with caution. Conclusions Schools appear to be an effective setting for motor skill interventions, but the extent of benefit likely depends on the type of intervention. Moreover, confirmation is needed as to whether benefits extend beyond motor function into everyday activities, participation, and well‐being. Future research should include follow‐up measures to assess the longer term efficacy of school‐based interventions.