Effectiveness of instruments for assessing physical activity in adolescents: a systematic review

2025

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)
DOI 10.20463/pan.2025.0024
Data confidence 70 medium
How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

PURPOSE: The World Health Organization (WHO) reported in 2016 that 81% of adolescents aged 11 to 17 years have insufficient physical activity (PA). This decline, coupled with poor nutrition and sedentary lifestyles, has emerged as a global concern. Regular PA is linked to better academic performance, motor skills, sleep, and stronger bones and muscles. Although most interventions to enhance PA in children are school-based, these have not effectively increased the overall daily PA. This review assesses the effectiveness of new devices such as electronic watches and smartphones in evaluating PA in older schoolchildren. METHODS: This review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. MEDLINE (PubMed) and Scopus were searched for articles. After removing duplicates, two reviewers independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts. Methodological quality was assessed using standardized tools, and data were extracted systematically. RESULTS: The search identified 2,259 articles, with 571 screened and 11 fully reviewed. Five studies were included, conducted in the USA, Namibia, Greece, Turkey, and Spain, involving adolescents averaging 13.8 years old. Three studies focused on self-reported tools, whereas two examined wearable monitors and smartphone apps. Waist-worn monitors displayed higher accuracy, whereas self-reported tools varied in validity and reliability. CONCLUSION: Both traditional and new PA assessment tools have strengths and limitations. Waist-worn monitors generally provide higher accuracy, whereas self-reported tools can be reliable if properly calibrated. Continuous evaluation is essential for improving PA assessment in school-age children.