ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Social support ecosystems for adolescent physical activity: a mixed-methods evaluation framework and empirical evidence from China.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to establish an evaluation system for social support in the field of adolescent physical health promotion and conduct empirical research, so as to provide a theoretical basis for optimizing the social support environment for adolescents' physical activity. Methods: This study employed the Delphi method and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to establish the evaluation index system. Subsequently, an empirical application was conducted from March to July 2025, involving 940 participants across six regions in Hunan Province. The Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation (FCE) method was utilized to analyze the data. Results: The social support evaluation system for adolescent physical health promotion consists of 4 primary indicators (government support, school support, family support, and community support), 19 secondary indicators, and 54 tertiary indicators. Among the primary indicator weights, government support had the largest weight (0.3764), followed by school support (0.2885), family support (0.2442), and community support (0.0909). For social support of adolescent physical health promotion in Hunan Province, government support scored the highest (87.56), reaching a "good" level; school support (80.82) and family support (75.40) were also rated as "good"; and community support had the lowest score (60.35). Conclusion: This study underscores the significant role of social support in adolescent physical health promotion. Relatively stable social support for adolescent physical health promotion mainly includes four dimensions: government, school, family, and community. Overall, the level of social support for adolescent physical health promotion in Hunan Province is relatively positive, but structural imbalances and other shortcomings still exist. Future efforts should focus on four key stakeholders, government responsibility: bridging the gap between policy intent and implementation, school implementation: overcoming academic pressure and resource constraints, family participation: reshaping parental perceptions and health literacy, and community extension: revitalizing grassroots support systems, so as to promote the comprehensive physical and mental development of adolescents.
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.