Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41003615›Full record

ReviewSports (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Developing the Physical Fitness of Children: A Systematic Scoping Review of Pedagogy in Research.

Mark Helme, Ian Cowburn, Kevin Till

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Sports (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mark HelmeCentre for Child and Adolescent Physical Literacy, Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds LS6 3QW, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7293-7498
Ian CowburnCentre for Child and Adolescent Physical Literacy, Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds LS6 3QW, UK.
Kevin TillCentre for Child and Adolescent Physical Literacy, Carnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds LS6 3QW, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9686-0536

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite a robust body of evidence supporting both the need for and the effectiveness of physical fitness interventions in children aged 5-11, global fitness levels in this age group continue to decline. This systematic scoping review interrogates a critical, often overlooked dimension of this paradox: the pedagogy of fitness-intervention design and delivery. By analysing 106 primary research studies, the review exposes a consistent pattern. Interventions are predominantly highly structured (89%), rarely foster a mastery-oriented motivational climate (only 11%), and fail to report practitioner behaviours (65%). While most interventions yielded positive fitness outcomes, these gains were achieved without the use of pedagogical strategies known to support engagement, autonomy, and long-term adherence in children. This suggests that current approaches may achieve short-term physiological improvements but are limited in cultivating the motivational and developmental conditions necessary for sustained impact. The findings underscore a pressing need for future research to move beyond the "what" of fitness programming and rigorously address the "how." Embedding and explicitly reporting pedagogical elements-such as supportive practitioner behaviours, autonomy-supportive structures, and mastery climates-could transform fitness interventions into developmentally appropriate, engaging, and sustainable experiences for children. Without this shift, we risk perpetuating interventions that are effective in the lab but ineffective in life.

Indexed as

aerobiccoachingconditioningexercisehealthmotivational climatepowerstrengthteaching

Identifiers

PMID41003615
PMCPMC12474001

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.