ArticleBMC public health2022
Exploring physical literacy in children aged 8 to 12 years old: a cross-cultural comparison between China and Greece.
Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Limited physical literacy outcomes in Singapore children: Implications for public health practice.Journal of exercise science and fitness · 2026Article
- Motor Competence Profiles in Greek Primary School Children: A Cross-Sectional Multilevel Analysis of Skill-Specific and Contextual Variability.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Children's perceptions of physical literacy: exploring meaning, value, and capabilities for lifelong physical activity.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
- The Effectiveness of a Physical Literacy-Based Intervention for Increasing Physical Activity Levels and Improving Health Indicators in Overweight and Obese Adolescents (CAPACITES 64).Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
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
backgroundThe concept of physical literacy (PL) has been advocated as a crucial determinant for increasing the quality and quantity of movement and physical activity (PA). Children's PL has been rarely compared across countries, although it has shown low levels in many countries. This study aimed to explore and compare children's PL from China and Greece.
methodsA total of 327 Chinese (47.1% boys) and 295 Greek children (48.1% boys) aged 8 to 12 years participated in this study. Children's PL was objectively assessed by the Chinese and Greek version of the Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy, 2nd edition, which consists of four domains: Daily Behavior, Physical Competence, Motivation and Confidence, and Knowledge. and Understanding. Univariate analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) on total PL and domain scores were conducted in both countries, respectively.
resultsMANOVA revealed significant differences in total PL and distribution scores between two countries (Pillais' trace = 0.260, F = 53.855, p < 0.001, η
conclusionsThe variance between Chinese and Greek children may be attributed to cultural differences in the context of PA, such as PE policies and settings. The relatively low level of PL shown in both countries echoes the global trend of the declining PA among children, with an increasing amount of their time spent in a sedentary lifestyle. These findings highlight the need to consider children's cultural factors and pedagogical strategies in terms of developing their PL. Future research is required to explore the impact of cultural background on PL development among children and appropriate strategies to migrate their influence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.