Teachers' Perspectives on the Acceptability and Feasibility of Wearable Technology to Inform School-Based Physical Activity Practices.

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. The "play gap": socioeconomic stratification in pediatric physical activity and its long-term health implications.Frontiers in public health · 2026
   Review
2. Primary School Pupils' Perceptions and Experiences of Wearable Technologies.The Journal of school health · 2024
   Article
3. The Use of Wearable Activity Trackers in Schools to Promote Child and Adolescent Physical Activity: A Descriptive Content Analysis of School Staff's Perspectives.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as