Lower levels of physical activity (PA) are often observed among children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) compared to children without ASD; however, some studies have demonstrated few to no PA differences between the two groups. The purpose of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to compare the differences in PA between children (2–18 years) with and without ASD. An exhaustive search of five online databases was completed, and 31 studies met the inclusion criteria. A pooled random-effects Hedges’s g model was used to determine differences in PA between children with and without ASD. Children with ASD were found to be significantly less physically active than children without ASD (Δ = −0.62, p < .001). Subgroup analyses revealed significant moderate to large differences in PA by intensity level, age, setting, and measurement methods. Future studies are needed to further explore the underlying mechanisms associated with lower levels of PA among children with ASD.

No abstract

Background: Parents and childcare providers play a substantial role in the development of health behaviours among the children they care for. In order to ensure the optimal growth and development of children, communication and family engagement in childcare is critical. Previous studies examining parent or provider perceptions about healthy eating or physical activity have explored these concepts individually and/or have only included only parents or providers. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare childcare provider and parent perceptions of communication regarding healthy eating and physical activity as well as use of best practice strategies on family engagement for these topics.Methods: Childcare providers (n = 12) in childcare centres or a family childcare home and a parent (n = 12) of a child they provide care for participated in a semistructured interview guided by the Social Ecological Model. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and uploaded to NVivo for data analysis. Data were analysed using a directed content analysis. Three trained qualitative researchers developed a codebook and then compared responses between parents and providers.Results: Similarities in provider and parent responses included agreement on healthy eating; influences on child development; parents being the most influential on children's healthy eating; how they identified physical activity opportunities; and the use of family engagement principles. Differences that arose included parents' roles in promoting children's physical activity; challenges for parents in promoting healthy eating and physical activity; and providers' encouragement of physical activity.Importantly, few parents mentioned providers were top influences on their child's healthy eating or physical activity. Providers also mentioned having difficult conversations with parents was challenging.Conclusions: Future efforts are needed to (1) help parents understand the providers' role in the development of their child's health behaviours and (2) strengthen efforts to engage families in healthy behaviours outside of childcare facilities.

Background: Fundamental movements (FM) of children influence the willingness to engage in physical activity (PA). Thus, proper FM skills are the foundation for a lifespan of PA. Objective: This study examined what factors may affect children’s PA in relation to FM pattern capabilities. Methods: The study examined the influence of SES when three low-income schools were provided additional PA opportunities on days PE was not taught. FM patterns in relation to object control (OC) and locomotor skill (LC) development were evaluated on K (n = 871), 1st (n = 893), and 2nd graders (n = 829) using the Test of Gross Motor Development-2 (TGMD-2) instrument (Ulrich, 2000). Schools were dichotomized and categorized as being low SES (n = 2008) and high SES (n = 578) status. Results: A significant relationship was revealed with LC (r = 0.264; p = 0.001), OC (r = 0.171; p = 0.001), and total TGMD-2 (r = 0.264; p = 0.001). Low and high SES schools significantly improved overall TGMD-2 scores. High SES schools children were significantly higher in LC [F, (2, 1272) = 29.31, p = 0.001], OC [F, (2, 1272) = 23.14, p = 0.001], and total TGMD-2 [F, (1, 1272) = 38.11, p = 0.001]. Conclusion: Low SES schools need to concentrate on PA-based activities to engage students in FM patterns, to help narrow the gap in FM capabilities. In addition, the increase in PA opportunities for lower SES schools could positively impact brain function, cardiovascular fitness, and overall well-being.

Background Parents play a key role in infant’s development through their interactions and the type of environment they provide to promote active play. The amount of time parents are able to spend with their infant is dependent on their working status, yet few studies have explored parent perception of their infant’s active play by working status. The purpose of this study was to explore parent perception of active play and compare responses between working and stay-at-home parents. Methods Twenty-nine parents participated in this qualitative study by completing a one-time, in-person semi-structured interview based on the Theory of Planned Behavior. Themes were developed and compared based on parental working status using a directed content analysis approach. Results All parents believed active play could have a positive effect on their child’s development through physical, social and emotional, cognitive, and/or language and communication development. However, stay-at-home parents reported a broader impact of active play across these domains; whereas working parents most often referenced active play as impacting infant’s physical development. Social and emotional interactions were the highest reported form of active play among all parents. Additionally, all parents described similar barriers to increasing the time for active play. The most commonly reported barrier for all parents was time or schedule followed by care needs of the infant, environmental concerns, and need for restrictive devices (e.g., car seats). More stay-at-home parents than working parents reported the care needs of the infant as being a barrier. Recommendations for active play were not widely known amongst all parents, with a higher percentage of working parents reporting they would desire advice from a healthcare provider. Conclusions Working status of parents appears to have implications on perceptions of active play which in turn may influence infants’ development. Future studies should objectively assess the impact of parents’ working status on infant development and explore how gender of the parent may serve as a confounding variable.