Next Article in Journal
Protecting Repositories of Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledges: A Health-Focused Scoping Review
Previous Article in Journal
Predictors of Low Back Pain Risk Among Farmers in Rural Communities of Loja, Ecuador
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Interventions on Barriers to the Participation of Adolescents in Physical Activity: A Systematic Review

by
Lauryane Fonseca Terra
1,2,*,
Leonardo Mateus Teixeira de Rezende
2,
Regina Márcia Ferreira Silva
2,3,
Woska Pires da Costa
4,
Vicente Miñana-Signes
5,
Matias Noll
2,6 and
Priscilla Rayanne E. Silva
2,7,*
1
Department of Nutrition, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Rio Paranaíba 38810-000, MG, Brazil
2
Public Health Department, Instituto Federal Goiano, Ceres 76300-000, GO, Brazil
3
Instituto Federal de Goiás, Itumbiara 75525-000, GO, Brazil
4
Research Department, Instituto Federal Goiano, Morrinhos 75650-000, GO, Brazil
5
Academic Unit of Physical Education, Body Languages Didactics Department, Universitat de València, 46010 Valencia, Spain
6
Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia 74690-900, GO, Brazil
7
Departamento de Obstetrícia e Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo 05508-070, SP, Brazil
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2025, 22(6), 881; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22060881
Submission received: 6 February 2025 / Revised: 14 April 2025 / Accepted: 23 April 2025 / Published: 31 May 2025

Abstract

This review aimed to assess the effectiveness of interventions used to minimize barriers to participation in physical activity (PA) among adolescents. This systematic literature review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines. Searches were conducted across five databases: PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. Thirty-four studies evaluated interventions to overcome barriers to participation in PA, with a focus on lack of motivation, encouragement, and support, as well as intrapersonal, interpersonal, and environmental barriers. Most interventions were conducted in developed countries, with an emphasis on girls, reflecting efforts to address health inequities. The interventions, conducted in schools, included workshops, training programs, lectures, goal setting, and practical activities, lasting from four weeks to four years. Twenty-seven studies (79.4%) reported positive impacts on PA participation, particularly in interventions addressing psychosocial, psychological, and behavioral barriers. The most effective interventions combined theory (through educational approaches) and practice (practical PA activities). These findings contribute to understanding barriers leading to physical inactivity and provide insights for developing or replicating initiatives to improve PA levels among adolescents.

1. Introduction

Regular participation in physical activity (PA) plays a crucial role in promoting well-being and public health while protecting against the potential adverse consequences of physical inactivity [1,2]. Inactivity is directly linked to non-communicable diseases, such as cancer, diabetes, respiratory, and cardiovascular diseases, representing one of the main behavioral risk factors for the current and future health of adolescents [3,4,5]. In addition, physical inactivity among youth is driven by the Physical Inactivity Triad (PIT), comprising exercise deficit disorder, pediatric dynapenia, and physical illiteracy [6]. To achieve physical, mental, and social health benefits [7,8] individuals must be physically active [9]. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that adolescents engage in moderate to vigorous PA for at least 60 min daily [9]. However, despite the importance of this guideline, evidence shows a concerning decline in participation in PA during and after adolescence, with approximately three out of four being considered inactive [10,11,12], which is likely to be due to various barriers to the implementation of interventions at a global level [13,14].
Barriers to participation in PA encompass various factors related to individual, behavioral, and environmental characteristics [13] that hinder or prevent the achievement of specific goals. These include environmental aspects (such as the lack of accessible spaces); socioeconomic and demographic factors (age, income, and education level); sociocultural factors (social norms and values); and psychological, emotional, and cognitive aspects (such as lack of time and motivation) [7,15,16,17]. Thus, these barriers are often shaped by the social determinants of health, which influence health outcomes but are not directly related to medical factors, encompassing socioeconomic and environmental conditions [18]. These determinants affect adolescents’ active participation in PA in various socioeconomic settings. In lower socioeconomic contexts, resources such as access to appropriate spaces, time, and opportunities for PA are more limited, leading to poorer health outcomes [18,19]. Additionally, characteristics of PA (such as intensity and accessibility) and behavioral factors, including previous habits and experiences, also affect adherence [13,14,15].
Physical illiteracy, for example, refers to the lack of confidence, competence, and motivation to perform meaningful physical activities with interest and enthusiasm [6]. Recent studies have identified key barriers among adolescents, including lack of time, lack of motivation, lack of family and peer support, laziness, and lack of access to facilities and specific environments [13,20,21,22]. Beyond identifying these barriers, it is essential to evaluate the impact of intervention programs and actions on PA and health outcomes [23]. This understanding will enable the replication of effective interventions aimed at reducing barriers to PA and inform the development of new programs and initiatives.
Considering the prevalent low participation in PA among adolescents [11,14], establishing effective strategies to reduce physical inactivity is crucial. The effectiveness of interventions, such as projects, programs, and actions, relies on segmented parameters that influence behavioral activities among individuals [24,25,26]. Among all the contexts in which PA can be promoted, educational settings have been identified as the most suitable place to intervene [9]. The successful promotion of PA requires interventions tailored to the characteristics, interests, and settings of adolescents to minimize the barriers [22]. Interventions based on goal modification techniques, monitoring, social support, behavioral changes, and outcomes [27] demonstrate superior results [28]. In recent years, different conceptual frameworks have been developed to provide theoretical support for the promotion of healthy habits in educational settings [29], such as the Active School Creation Model [30], which suggests policies and interventions by public administrations in the areas of health, education, and sports to foster the development of physical activity habits. Furthermore, a recent systematic review emphasized a requirement for interventions targeting behavioral change and/or addressing barriers to PA, prioritizing their dimensions [13]. In targeted interventions, digital technologies are increasingly common, both in behavior change techniques and computer-adapted methods, as well as in providing educational information, self-monitoring, and regular motivational feedback [31,32,33]. Therefore, synthesizing findings from studies addressing barrier-focused interventions, despite their scarcity, may prove essential for developing and implementing future effective interventions.
Previous meta-analyses indicate that interventions aimed at increasing PA levels in adolescents generally have small or minimal effects on moderate-intensity PA practice [34,35,36,37,38]. This scenario persists despite the advancement of recommendations on implementation strategies in school and community settings, including the incorporation of PA into school curricula, a measure widely supported in the literature [39]. These findings reinforce the need for critical reviews of the effectiveness of the adopted approaches and their adaptation to different contexts.
Although recent reviews suggest that multicomponent interventions provide greater health and well-being benefits compared to single-component approaches [40,41], there are no results extending beyond movement behaviors, such as cognitive, academic, physical health, and/or psychological outcomes [37]. Furthermore, a recent meta-analysis highlighted modest positive effects of the interventions but also pointed out a high risk of bias in most of the studies analyzed, emphasizing the importance of developing detailed reports on the implementation of actions and their impacts to enhance knowledge and facilitate the replication of effective approaches [37]. The main conclusion of the reviews is that combined interventions show potential, although the evidence base is still insufficient for definitive claims [38]. Thus, considering the sharp decline in PA during adolescence [11], it becomes essential to develop interventions aimed at minimizing the previously identified barriers, as these represent one of the main factors contributing to the alarming reduction in PA among this age group.
Distinct previous systematic reviews, which analyzed interventions to promote PA in adolescents without a specific focus on barriers and in other contexts [37,38,39], this review specifically examines the effectiveness of interventions targeting known barriers to PA. Given the scarcity of studies exploring interventions addressing identified barriers to participation in PA, understanding how barrier-focused interventions influence PA participation is crucial. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review assessing the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing barriers to participation in PA among adolescents. This study addresses two research questions: “What are the characteristics and outcomes of interventions implemented to minimize barriers to PA”? and “What are the most commonly recurring barriers during the implementation of initiatives to minimize barriers to PA?”. This review is particularly relevant considering that physical inactivity is a public health concern requiring prevention, particularly among adolescents. Beyond the significant potential as a strategy to effectively promote PA, this review aims to provide guidance to reduce health disparities and enhance overall public health [42]. Finally, the findings aim to advance the scientific knowledge of effective interventions while supporting institutional managers and the academic community in developing or replicating projects, programs, and initiatives to promote PA among adolescents.

2. Methods

2.1. Protocol and Registration

This systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42022382174) and subsequently published [43]. The study identification, selection, and evaluation followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines [44]. Ethical approval was not required, as only published articles were analyzed.

2.2. Identification and Selection of Studies

Primary studies, including qualitative, quantitative, and/or mixed methods, published in English were selected, with no restrictions on publication date. Searches were conducted in five databases: MEDLINE/PubMed® via the National Library of Medicine® interface, SPORTDiscus® via the EBSCOhost interface, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection between 1 February 2023, and 1 August 2024. The keywords for this systematic review were identified through Medical Subject Headings (MeSH terms): “intervention”, “barrier”, “physical activity”, and “adolescent”. MeSH terms and their synonyms (Table S1) were adapted according to the specific requirements of each database (File S1).
The search strategy and eligibility criteria followed the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) [45,46,47], which is widely used in evidence-based healthcare research. The “P” component included terms representing adolescents aged 10–19 years of both sexes, as defined by the WHO [9]. The “I” component included terms related to interventions aimed at reducing barriers to participation in PA. The “C” component referred to the absence of interventions and the “O” component focused on participation in PA.
For this review, original peer-reviewed studies published in English, with no date restrictions, were eligible for inclusion, provided they implemented interventions aimed at reducing barriers to physical activity in adolescents (aged 10 to 19 years) [9]. The validity of the eligible studies was assessed, and any retraction records were identified using the Scite tool [48].
Interventions conducted in clinical settings (hospitals and/or nursing homes) and those focusing solely on specific populations (such as rural, Indigenous, refugee, and isolated groups) were excluded. Studies with incomplete data, opinion articles, case reports, commentaries, editorials, dissertations, theses, reviews, and cross-sectional studies were also excluded, as well as those that were inaccessible even after attempts to contact the authors. Similarly, studies involving adolescents with physical or mental disabilities or chronic diseases during sampling were excluded, as well as those that included age groups outside adolescence, except when data were presented separately or could be calculated. Additionally, duplicates published in more than one journal were carefully reviewed to avoid redundancies, and studies that included retractions were also excluded. Finally, studies that discussed barriers to physical activity without the implementation of an associated intervention were excluded, and these could only be identified after a full reading of the articles. All the exclusion criteria were carefully outlined in the protocol [43].
After extracting metadata from the databases through the search strategy, the results were imported into the EndNote X9 software (Clarivate, Philadelphia, PA, USA) to identify and remove duplicates [49]. The review process followed three steps: (1) screening of titles and abstracts; (2) study selection based on eligibility criteria; and (3) full-text review of potentially eligible studies. Two independent researchers (LFT and LMTR), who were trained to screen articles, performed all the steps using the Rayyan software (Rayyan Systems Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA) [50]. To ensure accuracy, the reviewers conducted a cross-check of eligibility, and any discrepancies in study selection were resolved by a third reviewer (PRES), enhancing the reliability of the selection process. At the end of this process, the articles were included in the systematic review. Inter-rater reliability was calculated at each phase using GraphPad Prism 10.1.0® (GraphPad Software, LLC, San Diego, CA, USA), available at: https://www.graphpad.com/quickcalcs/kappa2/ (accessed on 21 Oktober 2024).

2.3. Data Extraction and Analysis

The following data were extracted and summarized from the articles included in the systematic review (File S2): (i) author, year, and place or country of study, (ii) barriers, (iii) intervention used and time, (iv) sample, (v) period in which data collection occurred, (vi) type of study, (vii) instrument used for data collection, (viii) type of analysis performed, and (ix) main results. Two independent reviewers (LFT and LMTR) synthesized the results, with discrepancies resolved by a senior third reviewer (PRES).
Following summarization, a descriptive analysis of the results and content analysis were performed based on the intervention attributes of the PA [51]. Content analysis, a communication analysis technique, was used to categorize data, enabling a structured and systematic understanding of the results from the studies included in this systematic review [51,52]. In cases of missing relevant data, we tried to contact the authors [51].
Initially, a comprehensive review of the material was conducted, followed by the identification of results and coding. Categories emerged through descriptive analysis, enabling the logical and coherent organization of findings. This method provided a robust foundation for data interpretation, ensuring scientific rigor and validity in the construction of categories, and accurately reflecting relevant variables and factors identified in the analyzed studies [51]. Furthermore, the methods and effectiveness of each intervention were compared, allowing the assessment of instruments used to reduce the barriers. To aggregate intervention outcomes (File S2) and present them (Table 1 and Table 2), the studies were analyzed based on their proposals considering the main results and conclusions presented in each study. All the studies were categorized into three levels of intervention effectiveness based on Table 3: “Low” for the studies showing no significant increase or negative outcomes in PA—considered an ineffective result, as indicated in Table 3; “Moderate” for those demonstrating limited or inconsistent positive effects (these studies may have addressed relevant barriers, but the intervention effectiveness was not sufficiently strong)—considered an inconsistent result (showing effects but lacking strong evidence) as indicated in Table 3; and “High” for interventions achieving statistically significant improvements in PA (p < 0.05 in most studies) and consistent improvements in the levels of PA of the participants—considered a successful result (Table 3), and the main intervention outcomes are presented in the extraction table (File S2). A meta-analysis was not conducted due to substantial heterogeneity in study designs, outcome measures, and intervention types, which precluded the statistical pooling of the results.

2.4. Methodological Quality and Risk of Bias

The strength of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) questionnaire [53,54] in the GRADEpro GDT online software (McMaster University and Evidence Prime, Inc., Hamilton, ON, Canada). The GRADE criteria evaluate the risk of bias, inconsistency of results, indirectness of evidence, imprecision, and publication bias in healthcare research [55]. Quality of evidence was categorized as follows: (a) high, (b) moderate, (c) low, or (d) very low [55].
To assess the risk of bias in quantitative studies, the translated and adapted version of the 27-item Downs and Black was utilized [56]. However, as some items of the questionnaire were not applicable to observational studies, a modified, condensed version (0–16 points) for longitudinal studies was used [57]. Thus, a group of 16 questions (corresponding to Questions 1–3, 5–7, 9–12, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26) was selected for use. Quality scores were calculated for each study and expressed as a percentage of the maximum possible score for the study design [56]. Studies scoring 70% or higher were classified as having a “low risk of bias”, while scores below 70% were considered to indicate a “high risk of bias” [53,54].
The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Qualitative Research Checklist (CASP) [58] was used to assess the risk of bias in qualitative studies. The evidence was evaluated through ten criteria [59]: (1) clear objectives; (2) methodology appropriate to the objectives; (3) study design appropriate to the objectives; (4) appropriate recruitment strategy; (5) data collection methods appropriate to the research question; (6) researcher–participant relationship; (7) ethical considerations; (8) rigorous analysis; (9) clear presentation and discussion of results; and (10) research contributions and implications to scientific knowledge. Studies were categorized based on their scores as low (0–3 points), moderate (4–7 points), or high quality (8–10 points) [60].
Two independent reviewers (LFT and LMTR) assessed the strength of evidence and the risk of bias, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer (PRES). The reviewers underwent preparatory training [61], and all the methodological procedures adhered to the pre-registered protocol [43]. All the studies were examined for declarations of potential conflicts of interest and ethical approval.

3. Results

3.1. Inter-Rater Reliability

The initial search yielded 12,825 studies. After removing 5043 duplicates and excluding 7589 articles during title and abstract screening, 193 studies remained for full-text review. The process of inclusion of articles in the systematic review is illustrated in the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram (Figure 1). The reviewers demonstrated strong agreement on study eligibility during title and abstract screening (98.3% agreement, κ = 0.74; 95% confidence interval: 0.70–0.78; standard error: 0.022) and near-perfect agreement during full-text review (98.4% agreement, κ = 0.95; 95% confidence interval: 0.89–1.00; standard error: 0.027).

3.2. Characteristics of the Selected Studies

During screening, 159 studies that did not meet the predefined inclusion criteria were excluded. After a full-text review, 34 studies that met the eligibility criteria were included (File S2) and synthesized (Table 1). No additional studies were identified through secondary searches of the reference lists in the included studies.
Table 1. Main information of the interventions included in this systematic review.
Table 1. Main information of the interventions included in this systematic review.
#Author, Year, and Country of Study Type of InterventionsTimeSampleEnvironmentsMethodsTheoretical FrameworkBarriersUse of Electronic Equipment **Level of Effectiveness
Quantitative
1
[62]
Aceves-Martins, M. et al. (2022)
Spain
Educational approach12
months
169 (13–16)School (socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods)Training and goalsYesLack of encouragement, guidance, and screen timeYesModerate
2
[63]
Andruschko, J. et al. (2018).
Australia
Mixed approach6
months
292 girls
(from 7th to 9th grade)
SchoolSessions and classesYesLow physical fitness and lack of enjoymentNoHigh
3
[64]
Åvitsland, A. et al. (2020).
Norway
Mixed approach29
weeks
1391 (14–15)SchoolClassesYesLack of motivation, self-efficacy, and psychosocial mechanismNoModerate
4
[65,66]
Barbosa Filho, V.C. et al. (2016); and
*** Barbosa Filho, V.C. et al. (2019).
Brazil
Educational approach4
months
1085 (11–18) students from 6 schoolsSchool (neighborhoods with low HDI 0.170–0.491)ClassesNoLack of knowledge and encouragement, screen time, school environment, lack of equipment, and lifestyleNoHigh
5
[67]
Bianchi-Hayes, J. et al. (2018).
USA
Practical approach10
weeks
9 (14–16) * overweight or obeseLocation (city)GoalsNoLack of motivation and parental support YesLow
6
[68]
Chen, Y. et al., (2023).
USA
Practical approach 9 weeks15 (12–17) *Location (households)Space and activities NoLack of suitable environments and low physical fitness and skills NoLow
7
[69]
Christiansen, L.B. et al. (2018)
Denmark
Educational approach 9
months
2797
(10–13 years old)
SchoolWorkshops, courses, educational materials, planning guides, and lesson plans NoLack of self-confidence and lack of motivation and support YesLow
8
[70]
Cook, T.L. et al. (2014).
Europe
Educational approach 3
months
536 students
(12–17)
International (Austria; Greece; Belgium; Germany; and Sweden).Training, goals, and activities YesNeighborhood safety, sports facilities in the neighborhood, lack of sports facilities at school, and social support YesHigh
9
[71]
Dunton, G.F. et al. (2007).
California
Mixed approach 9
months
122 girls
(14–17)
SchoolLectures, activities, and sessions YesLack of self-efficacy, lack of motivation, time, and enjoyment NoHigh
10
[72]
Gråstén, A. et al. (2015).
Finland
Educational approach 12
months
847 (12–14) SchoolTraining, classes, and workshops NoLack of motivation and lack of access to environments and equipment NoModerate
11
[73]
Jamner, M.S. et al. (2004).
California
Mixed approach 4
months
58 sedentary girls SchoolLectures, goals, and classes NoPsychosocial factors, lack of social support, and lack of enjoyment when participating in PA NoModerate
12
[74]
Lennox, A. et al. (2013).
South Africa
Practical approach 6
months
252 (aged 14.8) School (socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhood) Sessions NoLack of incentive NoModerate
13
[75]
Lindgren, E.C. et al. (2011).
Sweden
Practical approach 6
months
110 girls (13–19) School (socioeconomically disadvantaged) Sessions and activities NoLack of self-efficacy NoHigh
14
[76]
Sanaeinasab, H. et al. (2012).
Iran
Educational approach 2
months
165
(13–15)
School Lectures, workshops, and competitionsNoLack of encouragement and support YesHigh
15
[77]
Taymoori, P. et al. (2008).
Iran
Educational approach 6
months
161 girls
(9th and 10th grade)
School Lectures, goals, and classesNoLack of support, knowledge, and self-efficacy NoModerate
16
[78]
Tennfjord, M.K. et al. (2023).
Norway
Educational approach 4
years
1221
(11–12)
School ClassesNoPsychosocial problems (increased well-being and self-concept) NoLow
17
[79]
Verswijveren, S.J.J.M. et al. (2022).
Australia
Educational approach 3
months
273
(≥13) physically inactive
School (socioeconomically disadvantaged) Goals and lessonsYesSelf-efficacy, lack of support, lack of self-regulation strategies, and lack of enjoyment YesLow
18
[80]
Wilson, D.K. et al. (2011).
Columbia
Mixed approach
17
weeks
1563
(10–14 years)
(55% women)
SchoolGoals, activities, and lessonsYesLack of behavioral, social, and environmental skillsYesHigh
Mixed
19
[81,82]
Carlin, A. et al. (2018); e
*** Carlin, A. et al., (2019).
North Ireland
Mixed approach12
weeks
199 girls [45 (11–14) in complementary study]SchoolWalking sessionsYesLack of motivation, lack of time, and lack of opportunities in the school settingYesHigh
20
[83]
Corder, K. et al. (2020).
North Ireland
Practical approach12
weeks
1874 (13–14)SchoolLessons and goalsYesLack of support, motivation, time pressure, and self-esteemNoLow
21
[84]
Corepal, R. et al. (2019).
North Ireland
Practical approach22
weeks
224
(12–14)
SchoolGoalsYesLack of motivation, support, and mental malaiseYesLow
22
[85]
Dudley, D.A. et al. (2010).
Australia
Practical approach3
months
38 low-income girls (11th grade)
*
SchoolTraining and sessionsYesLack of enjoyment when participating in PA, lack of support, and low self-perceptionYesLow
23
[86]
Ferreira Silva, R.M. et al., (2023).
Brazil
Educational approach 4 weeks80 (15.9 ± 1.15)SchoolEducational materialsYesLack of knowledge, lack of encouragement, and lifestyleYesLow
24
[87]
Koorts, H. et al. (2020).
Australia
Mixed approach12
weeks
142 (mean age 13.7) Schools (socio-economically disadvantaged neighborhoods)Goals and activitiesYesLack of awareness, motivation, and incentiveYesModerate
25
[88]
Kroshus, E. et al., (2023).
USA
Practical approach12 months1076
(11–14)
SchoolProvision of kitsYesLack of suitable environments and lack of companyNoLow
26
[89]
Lubans, D.R. et al. (2014).
Australia
Educational approach5
months
361 (12.7 ± 0.5) inactive boys School (socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods)Sessions, goals, and trainingYesLack of motivation and long screen timeYesLow
27
[90]
Moore, R. et al., (2024).
Inglaterra
Educational approach3 months9 (11–13) *SchoolConversation
agent
YesLack of confidence and motivationYesLow
28
[91]
Sutherland, R. et al. (2020).
Australia
Educational approach24
months
6476; 49 schools from grades 7th to 9thSchool (socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods)Lessons, plans, and practicesYesLack of supportNoHigh
Qualitative
29
[92]
Bean, C.N. et al.
(2014).
Canada
Educational approach12
months
10 girls (11–14)Local (socio-economically disadvantaged)Workshops, awareness talks, and series of sessionsYesLack of support, lack of suitable environments and structures, lack of self-control and motivationNoHigh
30
[93]
Drehlich, M. et al. (2020).
Australia
Educational approach12
weeks
124 physically inactive
(13–14)
School (socio-economically disadvantaged)Missions and materialsYesLack of motivation and socio-economic conditionsYesLow
31
[94]
Lodewyk, K.R. et al. (2023).
Canada
Educational approach3
months
25 students girls (of 483)SchoolTraining, sessions, and activitiesYesLack of motivationYesHigh
32
[95]
Mitchell, F. et al. (2015).
Scotland
Educational approach4
months
41 girls
(11–16)
SchoolWorkshops and classesYesLack of motivation, autonomy, and interestNoHigh
33
[96]
Pierre, S.T. et al., (2024).
USA
Mixed approach3 years14 (14.8 ± 1.7)SchoolActivities and elective courses for coachesYesLack of support and
encouragement
NoHigh
34
[97]
Wright, P.M. & Burton, S. (2008).
USA
Educational approach12
months
23 African Americans (mean age of 14.8) from an urban high schoolSchools (socio-economically disadvantaged neighborhoods)Lessons and goalsNoLack of autonomy, stress, lack of motivation, and skillsNoHigh
Note: PA stands for physical activity, and HDI stands for human development index. * a sample size of <50 participants is insufficient for consistent results [98,99]. ** for sending messages, brochures, or reminders. *** two articles published in different years but complementary to another article by the same lead author, both referring to the same study. Observation: (1) In the “environments” column, it indicates interventions occurred at different levels (household, neighborhood, city and/or state). (2) “Mixed approach” indicates both theoretical and practical methods were used in intervention design and implementation. (3) Intervention effectiveness is classified into three categories: “Low” for the studies showing no significant increase in PA or negative results; “Moderate” for the studies showing some positive impact but with limited/inconsistent results; and “High” for the studies demonstrating significant and consistent increases in participants’ PA, with statistically significant results and robust approach to addressing identified barriers. The main outcomes for each intervention can be found in the extraction table (File S2) and Table 3.
The studies were published between 2004 and 2024, with 19 (55.9%) published after 2018 [62,63,64,67,68,69,78,79,81,83,84,86,87,88,90,91,93,94,96]. The studies predominantly originated from developed countries, with the United States leading (n = 8, 23.6%) [67,68,71,73,80,88,96,97]; followed by Australia (n = 7, 20.6%) [63,79,85,87,89,91,93], Ireland (n = 3) [81,83,84], Canada (n = 2) [92,94], United Kingdom (n = 2) [90,95], Norway (n = 2) [64,75], and Iran (n = 2) [76,77]; and single studies from Spain [62], Denmark [69], Finland [72], and Sweden [75]. In addition to these studies, a comprehensive European study encompassing five countries (Austria, Greece, Belgium, Germany, and Sweden) was identified [70]. Developing nations, including Brazil [65,86] and South Africa [74], were also represented (Table 2). In summary, the geographical distribution of the studies showed that Europe and the Americas each accounted for 35.3% (n = 12), followed by Oceania with 20.6% (n = 7), while Asia and Africa had lower representation with 5.9% (n = 2) and 2.9% (n = 1), respectively (Figure 2).
Table 2. Characteristics of the studies included in the systematic review.
Table 2. Characteristics of the studies included in the systematic review.
CharacteristicsCategoriesNumber of Studies (%)
Publication Year2004–20105 (14.7%)
2011–201710 (29.4%)
2018–202419 (55.9%)
Type of StudyQuantitative18 (52.9%)
Mixed10 (29.4%)
Qualitative6 (17.7%)
Region
OceaniaAustralian7 (20.6%)
EuropeIreland3 (8.9%)
Spain1 (2.9%)
United Kingdom2 (5.9%)
Norway2 (5.9%)
Finland1 (2.9%)
Denmark1 (2.9%)
Sweden1 (2.9%)
Austria, Greece, Belgium,
Germany, and Sweden *
1 (2.9%)
AmericaUnited States8 (23.6%)
Canada2 (5.9%)
Brazil2 (5.9%)
AfricaSouth Africa1 (2.9%)
AsiaIran2 (5.9%)
SexMale sex only1 (2.9%)
Female sex only10 (29.4%)
Both sexes23 (67.7%)
Sample size<10012 (35.3%)
100–50012 (35.3%)
501–10002 (5.9%)
>10008 (23.5%)
Sample economic statusLow13 (38.2%)
High
Unidentified21 (61.8%)
Duration of interventions<1 month
1–6 months21 (61.7%)
7–12 months10 (29.4%)
>12 months3 (8.9%)
Implementation in the school environment or through itYes
No
31 (91.2%)
3 (8.8%)
Electronic EquipmentYes16 (47.0%)
No18 (53.0%)
Theoretical FrameworksYes20 (58.8%)
No14 (41.2%)
Instrument used **Questionnaire27 (79.4%)
Interviews16 (47.0%)
Self-reports14 (41.2%)
Accelerometry9 (26.5%)
Measurement instruments5 (14.7%)
Applicative2 (5.9%)
Pedometric2 (5.9%)
Note: * comprehensive study conducted in more than one country; ** more than one instrument used per study.
Sample sizes of the included studies ranged from nine to 2797 adolescents, with variations attributed to methodological approaches. Ten intervention programs (29.4%) exclusively targeted adolescent females [63,71,73,75,77,81,85,92,94,95]. Programs targeting socioeconomically disadvantaged adolescents from low-development neighborhoods were conducted in 13 studies (38,2%) [62,63,65,74,75,79,85,87,89,91,92,93,97], with 6 of the 7 (85.7%) Australian studies conducted in low socioeconomic areas [79,85,87,89,91,93]. Quantitative studies were predominant (n = 18, 52.9%) [62,63,64,65,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80], followed by mixed-methods (n = 10, 29.4%) [81,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91] and qualitative studies (n = 6, 17.7%) [92,93,94,95,96,97]. Program duration ranged from 4 weeks to 4 years, with many programs lasting 12 weeks [70,82,83,85,87,90,93,94]. The most significant outcomes were observed in interventions lasting over three months [65,70,73,80,85,87,89,90,91,94] and exceeding one year [62,72,92,95,96,97] depending on the strategy employed. However, such extended durations occasionally affected participant engagement over time [95].
The most commonly used data collection instruments were as follows: questionnaires (n = 27, 79.4% [62,63,64,65,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90]); interviews (n = 16, 47.0%) [75,81,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97]; self-reports, including observations (n = 14, 41.2%) [62,67,71,72,76,77,78,80,83,85,88,90,92,97]; accelerometer (n = 9, 26.5%) [63,64,67,74,79,80,81,83,84]; and the use of measurement instruments (n = 5, 14.7%) [63,68,70,79,80], along with applications [67,89] and pedometers [84,89], to report baseline levels of PA. Outcome data included the use of applications, logbooks, and observations. The primary intervention assessment method was through self-reports and scale questionnaires after each action. Finally, outcomes of PA were presented in various forms, including different statistical variations, tests, analyses, movement frequency, and notes on levels of PA and energy expenditure.

3.3. Barriers to Participation in PA

Among the barriers identified in the studies involving adolescents participating in PA intervention programs, the following were notable (Figure 3):
  • Interpersonal, including social relationships, such as “lack of encouragement or motivation” (n = 23, 67.65%) [62,64,65,67,69,71,72,74,76,80,81,83,84,86,87,89,90,92,93,94,95,96,97] and “lack of parental and/or social support” (n = 13, 38.23%) [67,69,70,73,77,80,83,84,85,88,91,92,96].
  • Intrapersonal, including individual-related aspects, such as “lack of self-efficacy” (n = 8, 23.53%) [64,71,75,77,79,80,92,97], “psychological barriers” (n = 5, 14.70%) [64,73,78,84,97], “lack of social well-being” (n = 3, 8.82%) [78,83,84], “lack of enjoyment in physical activity” (n = 5, 14.70%) [63,71,73,79,85], “lack of knowledge” (n = 5, 14.70%) [65,77,78,86,87], “lack of autonomy or regulation” (n = 3, 8.82%) [79,95,97], “lack of time” (n = 3, 8.82%) [71,81,83], “lack of confidence” (n = 3, 8,82%) [69,85,90], “screen time” (n = 3, 8.82%) [62,64,88], “low physical fitness and/or skills” (n = 3, 8.82%) [63,68,97], “lifestyle” (n = 2, 5.88%) [65,86], “lack of guidance” (n = 1, 2.94%) [62], “lack of interest” (n = 1, 2.94%) [95], and “low socioeconomic status” (n = 1, 2.94%) [93] among adolescents.
  • Environmental, such as lack of adequate environments, are related to “lack of suitable equipment and facilities” (n = 6, 17.65%) [65,68,70,72,81,88], “school environment” (n = 4, 11.76%) [65,70,81,95], and “lack of safety in the neighborhood” (n = 1, 2.94%) [70].

3.4. Interventions to Address Barriers to Participation in PA

Among the barriers most frequently addressed when designing interventions for PA, the most frequently reported were “lack of motivation”, “lack of incentive”, and “lack of support” in the quantitative and qualitative studies (Figure 3).
Regarding the implementation of intervention programs, the following aspects were identified (Table 1 and Table 2):
  • Implementation Settings: Most studies (n = 31, 91.2%) [62,63,64,65,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,93,94,95,96,97] were conducted in or through schools.
  • Theoretical Frameworks: Some of the programs were explicitly based on theoretical frameworks, including cognitive, psychosocial, and socioenvironmental frameworks (n = 20, 47.0%) [62,63,64,67,69,70,71,79,80,81,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97].
  • Intervention methods: Models for intervention in PA were implemented through various approaches, including workshops, practical activities, training sessions, lectures, classes, and achieving goals (n = 27, 79.41%) [62,63,64,65,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,85,87,89,91,92,93,94,95,96,97]. Recent studies incorporated educational materials [86] such as the use of brochures and provision of dedicated spaces and activities, including outdoor education [68]. Additional resources included activity kits with balls (basketballs, soccer balls, and volleyballs), jumping ropes, resistance bands, and activity sheets with promotional ideas for PA [88]. Some interventions used conversational agents with theory-based approaches through a channel (school websites or social media platforms) targeting students [90].
  • Electronic Equipment: A total of 16 interventions (47.0%) incorporated electronic devices for implementation or support, such as messages, brochures, and reminders throughout the duration of the program [62,67,69,70,76,79,80,81,84,85,86,87,89,90,93,94].
Following the analysis of the implementation of intervention programs, the studies were categorized into two large groups: 19 (55.9%) focused on “training, education, and theory” or educational approach [62,65,69,70,72,75,76,77,78,79,86,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,97]; and 10 (29.4%) emphasizing “participation in PA” or practical approach [67,68,74,75,82,83,84,85,87,88]. Eight studies (28.5%) incorporated both aspects, including achieving goals through applications based on theoretical information [63,64,71,73,80,81,87,96].
The interventions demonstrated significant effects on increasing PA, with several studies showing moderate (n = 7, 20.59%) [62,64,72,73,74,77,87] and high (n = 14, 47.06%) [63,65,70,71,75,76,80,82,91,92,94,95,96,97] effectiveness, particularly through enhanced motivation and encouragement among adolescents. Several studies (n = 13, 32.35%) failed to overcome all the barriers to implementation, achieving only partial effectiveness of the intervention (low) [67,69,78,79,83,84,85,89,93]. The effectiveness of each intervention can be found in Table 1 (final column), and for more details on the applied interventions, please refer to Supplementary Materials (File S2). However, a summary of the successful and ineffective strategies (Table 3), allowing for comparison and triangulation of the data, was prepared. Regarding the effectiveness of the intervention, the studies demonstrating the greatest success in reducing barriers to PA primarily addressed the psychosocial and/or psychological barriers (n = 10, 29.41%) [65,71,75,76,80,91,92,94,95,96,97], behavioral and/or socioenvironmental barriers (n = 5, 14.70%) [63,70,80,82,92], and other barriers (n = 3, 8.82%) [91,94,95], together with those employing mixed methods with an educational emphasis (Table 1). These findings underscore the importance of strategies that not only address barriers but also holistically engage participants to effectively promote PA.
Table 3. Intervention methods and classification of strategies.
Table 3. Intervention methods and classification of strategies.
Intervention MethodIneffective ResultsInconsistent ResultsSuccessful Results
“Cluster-RCT”: A total of 120 min/week of school-based PA, combining active learning (M1), physical education classes, and focused activities (M2). [64]
“Son la Pera”: Training adolescents to create challenges and implementing 10 social marketing activities to promote healthier choices. [62]
“Sport4FunO”: A total of 17 weekly sessions combining motor activities in school sports, optional post-school sports, and theoretical sessions (150 min/week). [63]
“Jawbone UP MOVE”: Activity tracker and smartphone app used to set active minute goals and daily targets.[67]
“Strengthen Your Health”: Teacher training, health activities in the curriculum, PA opportunities, and health education for students and parents, with supervised PA during breaks. [65,66]
“Outdoor Education Program”: Weekly 2-hour sessions with individual and team physical activities, including team building, navigation, climbing, archery, cycling, and hiking.[68]
“Move for Well-being in School”: (1) physical education classes, (2) classroom activities, (3) PA during breaks, and (4) thematic days.[69]
“Activ-O-Meter”: A web-based, tailored lifestyle education intervention for personalized advice. [70]
(1) classroom PA, (2) health education sessions, and (3) online self-monitoring. [71]
(1) teacher training workshops, (2) recreational breaks, and (3) access to sports equipment and spaces during recess. [72]
(1) lectures on the benefits of physical activity, (2) participant-chosen activities (aerobic dance, basketball, swimming, Tae Bo), and (3) self-monitoring, goal-setting, and problem-solving. [73]
(1) 60 min sessions twice a week, (2) 30 min of aerobic training, (3) 15 min of strength and flexibility training, and (4) 15 min of ball skills (soccer, netball). [74]
“Exercise Intervention Program”: (1) increased self-awareness and self-efficacy, (2) participation in various sports and physical activities twice a week, and (3) focus on skill mastery without judgment. [75]
(1) lectures, group discussions, slides, videos, role-playing, and demonstrations, (2) competitions with parents, and (3) workshops on supporting children. [76]
(1) 45–60 min group sessions (lectures, dramatizations, slides, reminder cards, tracking plans, and brochures) and (2) individual counseling and goal setting. [77]
“Health Oriented Pedagogical Project”: (1) active learning approach, (2) 45 min of extra daily PA, and (3) 225 additional minutes of PA per week.[78]
“RAW-PA”: (1) wearable activity tracker (Fitbit Flex), (2) digital resources via a private Facebook group, and (3) interactive missions with behavior change content.[79]
“Active by Choice Today”: (1) 60 min AFMV activities, (2) weekly behavioral and motivational skills component, and (3) based on Social Cognitive and Self-Determination Theory. [80]
“Walking in Schools”: (1) 10–15 min of peer-led walking sessions, (2) reminder cards with tips and goal-setting, and (3) reward system for participation. [81,82]
“GoActive”: (1) in- and out-of-school activities, (2) peer-led hierarchical leadership, (3) selection of two activities per week, and (4) focus on peer support, self-efficacy, self-esteem, and friendship quality.[83]
“The StepSmart Challenge”: (1) pedometer competition and (2) goal setting and monitoring.[84]
Sports program with new activities: (1) classroom yoga, pilates, and dance via instructional videos, (2) introductory tennis training, and (3) water games.[85]
Eight colored folders based on “On Your Feet Britain” and activities.[86]
“Raising Awareness of Physical Activity”: (1) activity tracking via electronic device and app, (2) weekly interactive goals, and (3) motivational videos and forums. [87]
(1) activity kits with sports equipment, (2) activity sheets for PA ideas, and (3) promotion of PA before and after school, individually or with family.[88]
“Active Teen Leaders Avoiding Screen Time”: (1) teacher training and seminars, (2) enhanced school sports and lunchtime
PA sessions, (3) fitness equipment and pedometers, (4) parental strategies, and (5) smartphone apps and websites.
[89]
Phyllis Conversational Agent: (1) theory-based support via school website or social media, (2) motivation and confidence modules, (3) barrier identification and personalized solutions, and (4) activity recommendations.[90]
“PA4E1”: (1) PE classes, (2) activity plans, (3) school sports, (4) PA during recess, (5) school PA policies, (6) community PA
providers, and (7) parent communication.
[91]
“Girls Just Wanna Have Fun”: (1) workshops and awareness lectures and (2) sessions promoting self-control, effort, self-coaching, leadership, and transferability. [92]
Through missions on a wearable activity tracker (Fitbit Flex) supported by digital materials delivered via social media
(Facebook).
[93]
“Intramural Program Planning”: (1) 25 student facilitators, (2) leadership training, (3) peer group planning, and (4) organization of engaging PA activities. [94]
“Fit for Girls”: (1) PE teacher training and (2) school-specific action plans. [95]
“Up2Us Sports SBYD”: (1) PE classes and school activities, (2) coaching and mentoring, (3) nutrition and PA sessions, and
(4) coach training for inclusivity.
[96]
(1) integrated into PE classes, (2) self-control and participation, (3) group decision-making, (4) student-led activities, and (5) discussions on goal setting, life skills, and stress reduction. [97]
Note: a sample size of <50 participants is insufficient for consistent results [98,99]. The table presents the classification of intervention strategies into three categories: ineffective (strategies that did not yield satisfactory results), inconsistent (strategies that showed results but lacked strong evidence), and successful (strategies that demonstrated positive and consistent outcomes).

3.5. Methodological Quality of Studies and Risk of Bias

Among the studies included in this systematic review on interventions and barriers of PA, 32 (94.1%) explicitly sought ethical approval, while only 20 (58.8%) declared no conflicts of interest.
The GRADE scores, which assessed the quality of evidence, classified 18 (52.9%) studies as “high quality”, 7 (20.6%) as “moderate quality”, 3 (8.8%) as “low quality”, and none as “very low quality”. For the qualitative studies assessed with CASP, all six (100%) demonstrated high methodological quality. The Downs and Black scale scores ranged from 52% to 93% (Table 4), with 26 (76.5%) achieving scores of 70% or higher, indicating a low risk of bias. The description of study quality and risk of bias is presented in Table 4.

4. Discussion

This systematic review synthesizes the findings of interventions aimed at reducing barriers to PA participation among adolescents. The included studies, conducted in 17 countries and involving more than 17,000 adolescents, evaluated programs addressing intrapersonal, interpersonal, and environmental barriers, including lack of time, insufficient knowledge, lack of parental support, absence of suitable environments, and inadequate facilities and equipment. The most effective interventions combined educational elements (e.g., theoretical instruction) with practical PA. Finally, most interventions were conducted in developed countries, with an emphasis on girls, reflecting efforts to reduce health inequalities.
A recent systematic review emphasized the importance of addressing psychological, emotional, cognitive, environmental, and sociocultural factors in adolescent interventions [13], corroborating our findings on programs that significantly minimized psychosocial, psychological, and behavioral barriers, thereby increasing PA participation. These findings align with previous studies [100], including systematics reviews and meta-analyses [28,100,101,102], reinforcing the role of social relationships in exercise motivation and in overcoming barriers that prevent adolescents from meeting PA recommendations [2,103,104]. However, there is no consistent evidence extending beyond movement-related behaviors, such as cognitive, academic, physical health, and/or psychological impacts [37]. The studies included in this review, which considered these barriers in program implementation, yielded significant results based on their proposals, most with a low risk of bias, providing compelling evidence of the effectiveness of these interventions. Conversely, a recent meta-analysis highlighted modest positive effects of interventions but also pointed to a high risk of bias in most analyzed studies [37], underscoring the importance of detailed reporting for replication. Additionally, promoting social relationships, such as peer support and influence, along with overcoming psychosocial barriers, emerges as an effective strategy to encourage PA in this group.
The most effective interventions were those combining theoretical foundations with practical implementation strategies, such as the “Active by Choice Today” program, which integrated “Social Cognitive Theory” and “Self-Determination Theory” to promote behavioral and socioenvironmental skills. This program included moderate-to-vigorous PA activities (60 min) chosen by students each week, along with a behavioral and motivational skills component (30 min) [80]. However, well-structured interventions, whether practical or theoretical, also demonstrated effectiveness in minimizing proposed barriers, emphasizing the need to assess the context, limitations of each proposal, and their replication. In this regard, interventions addressing multiple factors—including interpersonal, intrapersonal, and environmental—demonstrated greater efficacy and promising results [105,106,107], primarily due to their influence on behavioral change in this group [108,109]. Consequently, multifaceted PA interventions, incorporating various elements such as individuals, social and physical contexts, public policies, and others, have shown promising effects on behavioral change [13,107,110]. This aligns with recent reviews indicating that strategies combining multiple elements yield better health and quality-of-life outcomes compared to methods focused on a single-aspect approach [40,41], although the evidence base remains insufficient for definitive conclusions [38].
On the other hand, interventions focusing on interpersonal relationships require more time and adaptations to meet individual and cultural characteristics [77]. This highlights the need for tailored strategies that consider the environment and social relationships to promote sustainable behavioral changes among adolescent girls. In line with a review of the barriers and facilitators for improving the quality of primary healthcare in low- and middle-income countries with children and adolescents [111], the combination of individual and environmental changes is widely recognized, as effective behavioral changes require supportive policies and environments [40,112]. Thus, this integrated approach proves to be more effective, not only by informing participants about the scientific importance of PA but also by actively engaging them in practical experiences, encouraging lasting behavior change. Furthermore, interventions adopting approaches focused on goal modification, continuous monitoring, social support, and behavior and outcome management [27] demonstrated a more significant positive impact [28], reinforcing previous studies.
The results of this review, conducted with adolescents, corroborate the findings from the general population [13,113,114,115,116] and demonstrate the effectiveness of interventions in overcoming barriers to PA, such as time management re-education [117], encouragement and guidance on PA benefits, social support from friends and family, and the provision of adequate equipment and facilities, which, in turn, influence socioeconomic barriers [106]. Consistent with a previous review on school-based interventions aimed at increasing PA among adolescents [35], strategies such as PA sessions, educational resources, environmental modifications, peer support, and teacher training were widely adopted, leading to improved outcomes. Therefore, the influence of each barrier should be considered [13] to ensure that health promotion strategies and public policies encourage PA [114], given that the lack of information on the theoretical foundations of interventions and their diverse strategies hinders the identification of the most effective approaches [70]. Thus, this integrated approach proves to be more effective not only by informing participants about the scientific importance of PA but also by actively engaging them in practical experiences, fostering continued participation in PA.
The implementation of PA interventions for socioeconomically disadvantaged adolescents in schools is influenced by environmental barriers that should be prioritized [13]. In this regard, collaboration between schools, community partners, and authorities is essential to creating environments that facilitate PA participation, particularly in socioeconomically challenging contexts, through extracurricular programs and other initiatives that minimize access barriers [118,119]. Additionally, when implemented both in school and community settings, these initiatives can promote positive youth development, contribute to social and emotional learning [90], and address factors affecting overall well-being [120]. Thus, the findings of this review, indicating that more than half of the included studies were implemented in school settings, reinforce the importance of school-community partnerships in creating spaces that encourage PA, especially in socially vulnerable scenarios, through strategies such as integrating activities into the curriculum, extracurricular programs, and teacher training, as seen in many interventions with consistent results [37,121]. Consequently, as recommendations advance regarding implementation strategies in school and community settings—a widely supported measure in the literature [39]—these findings highlight the need for critical reviews on the effectiveness of adopted approaches and their adaptation to different contexts, both inside and outside school settings.
Moreover, the included studies tended to focus on interventions targeting female adolescents, with only one study exclusively on males, highlighting the scientific consistency of boys being more active [11]. Previous studies have reported higher rates of physical inactivity among adolescent girls [122,123,124] and identified more barriers to their regular PA participation [125,126,127], which may be related to this trend. Interpersonal factors, such as a lack of social support and gender-related cultural expectations, along with environmental barriers, such as the absence of safe and adequate spaces for PA, directly impact this group [10,14,128]. Gender-based sociocultural norms play a significant role, particularly in highly unequal contexts like Latin America, where safety and social environment are crucial determinants of adolescent health behaviors [128]. In line with a recent review emphasizing the need to reduce insufficient PA levels as part of global goals for 2030 [9], multisectoral efforts are essential to ensure the inclusion of all groups, preventing the widening of inequalities based on gender, age, or geographic location [12]. Notably, interventions with the most evident results lasted three months, while short-term interventions may be ineffective in modifying habits [86]. In some cases, longer interventions were considered excessive, affecting participant engagement over time [95].
The implementation of PA interventions was notably more prevalent in developed regions such as Australia, Europe, and the United States compared to low- and middle-income countries. However, in Australia, six of the seven studies (85.7%) were conducted in low socioeconomic neighborhoods [79,85,87,89,91,93]. This disparity may be linked to efforts to reduce social health inequalities, which appear to be increasing in developed countries [129]. Moreover, evidence, including a review of reviews, suggests a correlation between relative poverty and the health and well-being of children and adolescents in precarious conditions, even in wealthy countries, contributing to widening inequalities [130,131]. A previous study identified an intervention mismatch in wealthy countries compared to those with greater social vulnerability and population potential [132]. A previous study identified a discrepancy in intervention implementation between wealthy countries and those with greater social vulnerability and population potential [116]. Consequently, developed countries tend to implement more interventions to mitigate barriers than low- and middle-income countries [111], potentially enhancing the population-level impact of health promotion. Ultimately, concerning the use of accelerometers, pedometers, measurement instruments, and apps to report baseline PA levels, these methods were associated with less significant outcomes when used in isolation. This finding is supported by a recent meta-analysis that found no significant effects of interventions on total accumulated daily movement behaviors, as measured by accelerometers and changes in waist circumference [37].
Among the main methodological limitations of the analyzed studies, the frequent use of self-reported data to measure physical activity stands out, which may introduce memory and social desirability biases. Additionally, many studies have small sample sizes, making it difficult to generalize findings to broader populations. The lack of long-term follow-up compromises the assessment of intervention effectiveness, while non-random sampling may introduce systematic bias in participant selection. Another recurring issue is the lack of treatment fidelity control and the use of subjective measurements, which can affect the reliability of the results. These limitations highlight the need for caution when interpreting findings and reinforce the importance of future studies that address these methodological shortcomings.
This review highlighted several studies that contribute to the development and replication of effective interventions to increase PA. However, there are still opportunities to improve the design and reporting of these studies. The novelty of this review lies in compiling scientific evidence on interventions aimed at reducing barriers to participation in PA among adolescents. This compilation identified gaps in the literature and informed future studies. A notable strength is the use of rigorous, validated, and well-established methods, along with reviewer training. This systematic process enabled the exclusion of retracted studies.
Additionally, the limitations of the included studies, often overlooked in evaluations, were reported. However, this study also has limitations. Firstly, despite reviewer training, disagreements arose due to the subjective nature of the interventions addressing PA barriers, particularly in the initial review phase. This was largely due to the exclusion criteria that did not account for studies, identified as ineligible, only after a full-text review [133]. Second, the exclusion of gray literature in the review may have resulted in relevant information being missed. Methodological heterogeneity among the studies prevented a meta-analysis, as they differed in design, with similar barriers, both in terms of timing and methodology, and even in execution. Additionally, there was a lack of standardization in assessing intervention effectiveness. Future studies should apply rigorous methodologies, including bias control and context-sensitive approaches, ensuring durations longer than three months but under a year. Identifying barriers through targeted surveys and refining existing interventions, even those with inconsistent results, will help generate more reliable evidence.
Policymakers, educators, and healthcare professionals must evaluate the context and limitations of each intervention to ensure they meet adolescents’ specific needs. Future programs should minimize barriers and adapt strategies based on identified challenges, applying rigorous methodologies that integrate theoretical and practical approaches, bias control, and at least three months of interconnected actions. These efforts will generate reliable evidence to enhance intervention effectiveness and address physical inactivity among adolescents globally. Schools, particularly in underserved areas, can integrate PA into the curriculum through structured breaks and teacher training in inclusive methods. Programs like “Sport4Fun” conducted by Andruschko et al. [63] and “Walking In Schools” by Carlin et al. [81,82] effectively boost engagement by incorporating structured sessions and peer-led activities. Policymakers should enforce PA-friendly policies, allocate funding for structured programs like “Active by Choice Today” by Wilson et al. [80], and establish national guidelines promoting school-community collaboration, especially in low-income regions. The Outdoor Education Program by Chen et al. [68] has potential but requires larger sample sizes to confirm their effectiveness. In contrast, the program “Fit for Girls” by Mitchell et al. [95] has shown positive results in schools with gender-inclusion policies.
Community organizations can reinforce these efforts by hosting culturally relevant PA events, partnering with schools for affordable activities, and running awareness campaigns on the benefits of an active lifestyle. Ongoing monitoring and evaluation are crucial to track participation and health outcomes, ensuring interventions remain effective, sustainable, and adaptable to diverse adolescent needs.

5. Conclusions

The best results, with greater scientific rigor in some studies, were observed in addressing the psychosocial, psychological, and behavioral barriers, highlighting the importance of personalized approaches. The most effective interventions combined foundations with practical applications, as seen in adapted school programs and educational campaigns. However, the predominance of these interventions was conducted in developed countries, emphasizing the need for targeted efforts in low- and middle-income countries to promote PA equitably. These findings reinforce the need for critical reviews of the effectiveness of the approaches used and their adaptation to different contexts. Future studies should adopt rigorous methodologies, including bias control, long-term follow-ups, cost-effectiveness analyses, and the inclusion of gender-diverse populations, to generate more robust evidence. Finally, such evidence can support managers and the academic community in developing and implementing more effective interventions to promote PA among adolescents.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph22060881/s1, File S1: Search strategy; File S2: Main version of the table used to extract data from the included studies; File S3: Checklist of the PRISMA 2020; Table S1: Keywords comprising the search strategy organized in blocks.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.F.T., R.M.F.S., W.P.d.C., V.M.-S., M.N., and P.R.E.S.; methodology, L.F.T., L.M.T.d.R., R.M.F.S., W.P.d.C., V.M.-S., M.N., and P.R.E.S.; software, Not applicable; validation, L.F.T., R.M.F.S., W.P.d.C., M.N., and P.R.E.S.; formal analysis, L.F.T., M.N., and P.R.E.S.; investigation, L.F.T., L.M.T.d.R., and P.R.E.S.; resources, L.F.T., M.N. and P.R.E.S.; data curation, L.F.T. and P.R.E.S.; writing—original draft preparation, L.F.T., L.M.T.d.R., R.M.F.S., W.P.d.C., V.M.-S., M.N., and P.R.E.S.; writing—review and editing, L.F.T., L.M.T.d.R., R.M.F.S., W.P.d.C., V.M.-S., M.N., and P.R.E.S.; visualization, L.F.T., L.M.T.d.R., M.N., and P.R.E.S.; supervision, M.N. and P.R.E.S.; project administration, L.F.T. and P.R.E.S.; funding acquisition, No external funding. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Instituto Federal Goiano through an undergraduate research grant.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical approval was not required for this study as it is an analysis of previously published articles (i.e., secondary data).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude to the Instituto Federal Goiano for providing the necessary conditions for conducting the review, and for the financial support received through the scholarship grant from the Institutional Program of Scientific Initiation for High School (PIBIC-EM), Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Goiás (FAPEG), and Grupo de Pesquisa sobre Saúde da Criança e do Adolescente (GPSaCA—https://www.gpsaca.com.br (accessed on 12 January 2024)) for their support in the realization of this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Granero-Jiménez, J.; López-Rodríguez, M.M.; Dobarrio-Sanz, I.; Cortés-Rodríguez, A.E. Influence of Physical Exercise on Psychological Well-Being of Young Adults: A Quantitative Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. World Health Organization. Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health; WHO Press: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  3. Martinez, R.; Lloyd-Sherlock, P.; Soliz, P.; Ebrahim, S.; Vega, E.; Ordunez, P.; McKee, M. Trends in premature avertable mortality from non-communicable diseases for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: A population-based study. Lancet Glob. Health 2020, 8, e511–e523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Botero, J.P.; Farah, B.Q.; Correia, M.d.A.; Lofrano-Prado, M.C.; Cucato, G.G.; Shumate, G.; Ritti-Dias, R.M.; Prado, W.L.D. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic stay at home order and social isolation on physical activity levels and sedentary behavior in Brazilian adults. Einstein (Sao Paulo) 2021, 19, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. World Health Organization. Noncommunicable Diseases Progress Monitor 2020; WHO Press: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  6. Faigenbaum, A.D.; MacDonald, J.P.; Carvalho, C.; Rebullido, T.R. The Pediatric Inactivity Triad: A Triple Jeopardy for Modern Day Youth. ACSM′s Health Fit. J. 2020, 24, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Obi, O.C.; Nnonyelu, A.C.; Onobrakpeya, A.; Ogundele, O.J. Benefits and barriers to physical activity among African women: A systematic review. Sports Med. Health Sci. 2023, 5, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Anderson, E.; Durstine, J.L. Physical activity, exercise, and chronic diseases: A brief review. Sports Med. Health Sci. 2019, 1, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. WHO. Global Action Plan on Physical Activity 2018–2030: More Active People for a Healthier World; WHO Press: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  10. Hallal, P.C.; Andersen, L.B.; Bull, F.C.; Guthold, R.; Haskell, W.; Ekelund, U. Global physical activity levels: Surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Lancet 2012, 380, 247–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Guthold, R.; Stevens, G.A.; Riley, L.M.; Bull, F.C. Global trends in insufficient physical activity among adolescents: A pooled analysis of 298 population-based surveys with 1.6 million participants. Lancet Child. Adolesc. Health 2020, 4, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Strain, T.; Flaxman, S.; Guthold, R.; Semenova, E.; Cowan, M.; Riley, L.M.; Bull, F.C.; A Stevens, G.; Country Data Author Group. National, regional, and global trends in insufficient physical activity among adults from 2000 to 2022: A pooled analysis of 507 population-based surveys with 5·7 million participants. Lancet Glob. Health 2024, 12, e1232–e1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Silva, R.M.F.; Mendonça, C.R.; Azevedo, V.D.; Memon, A.R.; Noll, P.R.E.S.; Noll, M. Barriers to high school and university students’ physical activity: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0265913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Rosselli, M.; Ermini, E.; Tosi, B.; Boddi, M.; Stefani, L.; Toncelli, L.; Modesti, P.A. Gender differences in barriers to physical activity among adolescents. Nutr. Metab. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2020, 30, 1582–1589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Van Der Horst, K.; Paw, M.J.C.A.; Twisk, J.W.R.; Van Mechelen, W. A brief review on correlates of physical activity and sedentariness in youth. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2007, 39, 1241–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Santos, M.S.; Fermino, R.C.; Reis, R.S.; Cassou, A.C.; Rodriguez-Añez, C.R. Barriers related to physical activity practice in adolescents. A Focus-Group study. Braz. J. Kinanthropometry Human Perform. 2010, 12, 137–143. [Google Scholar]
  17. Silva, R.M.F.; Terra, L.F.; Fernandes, M.S.V.; Noll, P.R.E.S.; Abreu, L.C.; Noll, M. Barriers to physical activity among full-time students: A case study during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Closing the Gap in A Generation: Health Equity through Action on the Social Determinants of Health. 2008. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241563703 (accessed on 12 January 2024).
  19. Chaturvedi, A.; Zhu, A.; Gadela, N.V.; Prabhakaran, D.; Jafar, T.H. Social Determinants of Health and Disparities in Hypertension and Cardiovascular Diseases. Hypertension 2024, 81, 387–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  20. Chaabane, S.; Chaabna, K.; Doraiswamy, S.; Mamtani, R.; Cheema, S. Barriers and facilitators associated with physical activity in the Middle East and North Africa Region: A systematic overview. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2021, 18, 1647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Vieira, V.R.; Silva, J.V.P. Barriers to practice physical activities in leisure-time of Brazilians: Systematic review. Pensar A Prática 2019, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Martins, J.; Costa, J.; Sarmento, H.; Marques, A.; Farias, C.; Onofre, M.; Valeiro, M.G. Adolescents’ perspectives on the barriers and facilitators of physical activity: An updated systematic review of qualitative studies. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2021, 18, 4954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Rech, C.R.; Camargo, E.M.; Araujo, P.A.B.; Loch, M.R.; Reis, R.S. Perceived barriers to leisure-time physical activity in the Brazilian population. Rev. Bras. De Med. Do Esporte 2018, 24, 303–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hoehner, C.M.; Ribeiro, I.C.; Parra, D.C.; Reis, R.S.; Azevedo, M.R.; Hino, A.A.; Soares, J.; Hallal, P.C.; Simões, E.J.; Brownson, R.C. Physical activity interventions in Latin America. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2013, 44, e31–e40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wójcicki, R.T.; McAuley, E. Maintenance of physical activity interventions: Premises of efficacy individual. Rev. Família Ciclos Vida Saúde Contexto Soc. 2014, 2, 194–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zanaboni, P.; Manskow, U.S.; Sagelv, E.H.; Morseth, B.; Edvardsen, A.E.; Aamot, I.-L.; Nes, B.M.; Hastings, B.; Gagnon, M.-P.; Antypas, K. Digital interventions to promote physical activity among inactive adults: A study protocol for a hybrid type I effectiveness-implementation randomized controlled trial. Front Public Health 2022, 10, 925484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Lyons, E.J.; Lewis, Z.H.; Mayrsohn, B.G.; Rowland, J.L. Behavior change techniques implemented in electronic lifestyle activity monitors: A systematic content analysis. J. Med. Internet Res. 2014, 16, e192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Whatnall, M.C.; Sharkey, T.; Hutchesson, M.J.; Haslam, R.L.; Bezzina, A.; Collins, C.E.; Ashton, L.M. Effectiveness of interventions and behaviour change techniques for improving physical activity in young adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Sports Sci. 2021, 39, 1754–1771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Grao-Cruces, A.; Oliva, D.S.; Sevil-Serrano, J.; Sánchez-López, M.; Sánchez-Miguel, P.A.; Camiletti-Moirón, D.; García-Calvo, T.; Castro-Piñero, J. Centros educativos promotores de actividad física: Estrategias basadas en la evidencia científica. evista Española De Educación Física Y Deportes 2023, 437, 37–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Daly-Smith, A.; Quarmby, T.; Archbold, V.S.J. Using a multi-stakeholder experience-based design process to co-develop the Creating Active Schools Framework. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2020, 17, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Conroy, D.E.; Yang, C.-H.; Maher, J.P. Behavior change techniques in top-ranked mobile apps for physical activity. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2014, 46, 649–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. King, A.C.; Taylor, C.B.; Haskell, W.L.; Debusk, R.F. Strategies for increasing early adherence to and long-term maintenance of home-based exercise training in healthy middle-aged men and women. Am. J. Cardiol. 1988, 61, 628–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Western, M.J.; Armstrong, M.E.G.; Islam, I.; Morgan, K.; Jones, U.F.; Kelson, M.J. The effectiveness of digital interventions for increasing physical activity in individuals of low socioeconomic status: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2021, 18, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Van de Kop, J.H.; Van Kernebeek, W.G.; Otten, R.H.J.; Toussaint, H.M.; Verhoeff, A.P. School-Based Physical Activity Interventions in Prevocational Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses. J. Adolesc. Health 2019, 65, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Borde, R.; Smith, J.J.; Sutherland, R.; Nathan, N.; Lubans, D.R. Methodological considerations and impact of school-based interventions on objectively measured physical activity in adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes. Rev. 2017, 18, 476–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Pearson, N.; Braithwaite, R.; Biddle, S.J.H. The effectiveness of interventions to increase physical activity among adolescent girls: A meta-analysis. Acad. Pediatr. 2015, 15, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Contardo Ayala AM; Parker, K.; Mazzoli, E.; Lander, N.; Ridgers, N.D.; Timperio, A.; Lubans, D.R.; Abbott, G.; Koorts, H.; Salmon, J. Effectiveness of Intervention Strategies to Increase Adolescents’ Physical Activity and Reduce Sedentary Time in Secondary School Settings, Including Factors Related to Implementation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Med.-Open 2024, 10, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Remskar, M.; Western, M.J.; Osborne, E.L.; Maynard, O.M.; Ainsworth, B. Effects of combining physical activity with mindfulness on mental health and wellbeing: Systematic review of complex interventions. Ment. Health Phys. Act. 2024, 26, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Li, Z.; Li, J.; Kong, J.; Li, Z.; Wang, R.; Jiang, F. Adolescent mental health interventions: A narrative review of the positive effects of physical activity and implementation strategies. Front. Psychol. 2024, 15, 1433698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Messing, S.; Rütten, A.; Abu-Omar, K.; Ungerer-Röhrich, U.; Goodwin, L.; Burlacu, I.; Gediga, G. How Can Physical Activity Be Promoted Among Children and Adolescents? A Systematic Review of Reviews Across Settings. Front. Public. Health. 2019, 7, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  41. van Sluijs, E.M.F.; Ekelund, U.; Crochemore-Silva, I.; Guthold, R.; Ha, A.; Lubans, D.; Oyeyemi, A.L.; Ding, D.; Katzmarzyk, P.T. Physical activity behaviours in adolescence: Current evidence and opportunities for intervention. Lancet 2021, 398, 429–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Giolo-Melo, C.; Pacheco, R.T.B. Physical activity, public policy, health promotion, sociability and leisure: A study on gymnastics groups in a Brazilian city hall. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Terra, L.F.; Costa, W.P.; Silva, R.M.F.; Rezende, L.M.T.; Noll, M.; Noll, P.R.E.S. Interventions towards barriers to the practice of physical activity in adolescence: A systematic review protocol. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0287868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Huang, X.; Lin, J.; Demner-Fushman, D. Evaluation of PICO as a knowledge representation for clinical questions. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2006, 359–363. [Google Scholar]
  46. Ho, G.J.; Liew, S.M.; Ng, C.J.; Hisham Shunmugam, R.; Glasziou, P. Development of a search strategy for an evidence based retrieval Service. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0167170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Santos, C.M.C.; Pimenta, C.A.M.; Nobre, M.R.C. The PICO strategy for the research question construction and evidence search. Rev. Lat. Am. Enferm. 2007, 15, 508–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Pérez-Neri, I.; Pineda, C.; Flores-Guerrero, J.L.; Estêvão, M.D.; Vasanthan, L.T.; Lorente, S.; García-González, R.; Devulapalli, V.; Weerasekara, I.; de Aguiar, D.R.; et al. Adherence to literature search reporting guidelines in leading rheumatology journals’ systematic reviews: Umbrella review protocol. Rheumatol. Int. 2022, 42, 2135–2140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. McKeown, S.; Mir, Z.M. Considerations for conducting systematic reviews: Evaluating the performance of different methods for de-duplicating references. Syst. Rev. 2021, 10, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ouzzani, M.; Hammady, H.; Fedorowicz, Z.; Elmagarmid, A. Rayyan—A web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2016, 5, 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bardin, L. Content Analysis, 3rd ed.; Edições: São Paulo, Brazil, 2016; Volume 70. [Google Scholar]
  52. Melo, A.F.; da Costa, W.P.; Rodrigues, R.R.; Nunes Lde, A.C.B.; Noll, P.R.E.S.; Noll, M. Panorama of Undergraduate Research in Brazil: Profile, Scientific Production, and Perceptions. Publications 2023, 11, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Guyatt, G.H.; Oxman, A.D.; Vist, G.E.; Kunz, R.; Falck-Ytter, Y.; Alonso-Coello, P.; Schünemann, H.J. GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008, 336, 924–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Guyatt, G.H.; Oxman, A.D.; Schünemann, H.J.; Tugwell, P.; Knottnerus, A. GRADE guidelines: A new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2011, 64, 380–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Balshem, H.; Helfand, M.; Schünemann, H.J. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2011, 64, 401–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Downs, S.H.; Black, N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 1998, 52, 377–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Noll, M.; De Mendonça, C.R.; De Souza Rosa, L.P.; Silveira, E.A. Determinants of eating patterns and nutrient intake among adolescent athletes: A systematic review. Nutr. J. 2017, 16, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklist. CASP Systematic Review Checklist. Oxford 2018. Available online: https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/systematic-review-checklist/ (accessed on 30 June 2024).
  59. Long, H.A.; French, D.P.; Brooks, J.M. Optimising the value of the critical appraisal skills programme (CASP) tool for quality appraisal in qualitative evidence synthesis. Res. Methods Med. Health Sci. 2020, 1, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Dixon-Woods, M.; Bonas, S.; Booth, A.; Jones, D.R.; Miller, T.; Sutton, A.J.; Shaw, R.L.; Smith, J.A.; Young, B. How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qual. Res. 2006, 6, 27–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Noll, M.; Wedderkopp, N.; Mendonça, C.R.; Kjaer, P. Motor performance and back pain in children and adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol. Syst. Rev. 2020, 9, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Aceves-Martins, M.; Llauradó, E.; Tarro, L. “Som la Pera,” a school-based, peer-led social marketing intervention to engage Spanish adolescents in a healthy lifestyle: A parallel-cluster randomized controlled study. Child. Obes. 2022, 18, 556–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Andruschko, J.; Okely, A.D.; Pearson, P. A school-based physical activity and motor development program for low-fit adolescent females: The Sport4Fun pilot randomized controlled trial. J. Mot. Learn. Dev. 2018, 6, 345–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Åvitsland, A.; Leibinger, E.; Resaland, G.K.; Solberg, R.B.; Kolle, E.; Dyrstad, S.M. Effects of school-based physical activity interventions on mental health in adolescents: The School in Motion cluster randomized controlled trial. Ment. Health Phys. Act. 2020, 19, 100348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Barbosa Filho, V.C.; Silva, K.S.; Mota, J.; Beck, C.; Lopes, A.S. A physical activity intervention for Brazilian students from low human development index areas: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. J. Phys. Act. Health 2016, 13, 1174–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Filho, V.C.B.; Bandeira, A.d.S.; Minatto, G.; Linard, J.G.; da Silva, J.A.; da Costa, R.M.; Manta, S.W.; de Sá, S.A.M.; Matias, T.S.; da Silva, K.S. Effect of a multicomponent intervention on lifestyle factors among Brazilian adolescents from low human development index areas: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2019, 16, 267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Bianchi-Hayes, J.; Schoenfeld, E.; Cataldo, R.; Hou, W.; Messina, C.; Pati, S. Combining activity trackers with motivational interviewing and mutual support to increase physical activity in parent-adolescent dyads: Longitudinal observational feasibility study. JMIR Pediatr. Parent. 2018, 1, e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Chen, Y.; McCreary, A.; Stenger-Ramsey, T. Effectiveness of an Outdoor Education Program with Homeschool Students. J. Outdoor Recreat. Educ. Leadersh. 2023, 16, 55–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Christiansen, L.B.; Lund-Cramer, P.; Brondeel, R.; Smedegaard, S.; Holt, A.-D.; Skovgaard, T. Improving children’s physical self-perception through a school-based physical activity intervention: The move for well-being in school study. Ment. Health Phys. Act. 2018, 14, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Cook, T.L.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Maes, L.; Haerens, L.; Grammatikaki, E.; Widhalm, K.; Kwak, L.; Plada, M.; Moreno, L.A.; Tountas, Y.; et al. Psychosocial determinants and perceived environmental barriers as mediators of the effectiveness of a web-based tailored intervention promoting physical activity in adolescents: The HELENA Activ-O-Meter. J. Phys. Act. Health 2014, 11, 741–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Dunton, G.F.; Schneider, M.; Cooper, D.M. An investigation of psychosocial factors related to changes in physical activity and fitness among female adolescents. Psychol. Health 2007, 22, 929–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Gråstén, A.; Yli-Piipari, S.; Watt, A.; Jaakkola, T.; Liukkonen, J. Effectiveness of school-initiated physical activity program on secondary school students’ physical activity participation. J. Sch. Health 2015, 85, 125–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Jamner, M.S.; Spruijt-Metz, D.; Bassin, S.; Cooper, D.M. A controlled evaluation of a school-based intervention to promote physical activity among sedentary adolescent females: Project FAB. J. Adolesc. Health 2004, 34, 279–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Lennox, A.; Pienaar, A.E. Effects of an after-school physical activity programme on aerobic fitness and physical activity levels of adolescents from a disadvantaged community: PLAY study. Afr. J. Phys. Act. Health Sci. 2013, 19, 154–168. [Google Scholar]
  75. Lindgren, E.-C.; Baigi, A.; Apitzsch, E.; Bergh, H. Impact of a six-month empowerment-based exercise intervention programme in non-physically active adolescent Swedish girls. Health Educ. J. 2011, 70, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Sanaeinasab, H.; Saffari, M.; Pakpour, A.H.; Nazeri, M.; Piper, C.N. A model-based educational intervention to increase physical activity among Iranian adolescents. J. de Pediatr. 2012, 88, 430–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Taymoori, P.; Niknami, S.; Berry, T.; Lubans, D.; Ghofranipour, F.; Kazemnejad, A. A school-based randomized controlled trial to improve physical activity among Iranian high school girls. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2008, 5, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Tennfjord, M.K.; Strand, M.F.; Østby, N.; Harbø, K.M.T.; Fredriksen, P.M. A school-based physical activity intervention on psychosocial health outcomes among 11- and 12-year-olds—HOPP-project. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2023, 33, 455–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Verswijveren, S.J.J.M.; Abbott, G.; Lai, S.K.; Salmon, J.; Timperio, A.; Brown, H.; Macfarlane, S.; Ridgers, N.D. Mediators of effects on physical activity and sedentary time in an activity tracker and behavior change intervention for adolescents: Secondary analysis of a cluster randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2022, 10, e35261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Wilson, D.K.; Van Horn, M.L.; Kitzman-Ulrich, H.; Saunders, R.; Pate, R.; Lawman, H.G.; Hutto, B.; Griffin, S.; Zarrett, N.; Addy, C.L.; et al. Results of the “Active by Choice Today” (ACT) randomized trial for increasing physical activity in low-income and minority adolescents. Health Psychol. 2011, 30, 463–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Carlin, A.; Murphy, M.H.; Nevill, A.; Gallagher, A.M. Effects of a peer-led Walking In ScHools intervention (the WISH study) on physical activity levels of adolescent girls: A cluster randomised pilot study. Trials 2018, 19, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Carlin, A.; Murphy, M.H.; Gallagher, A.M. Using the school environment to promote walking amongst adolescent females: A mixed-method study. Children 2019, 6, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Corder, K.; Sharp, S.J.; Jong, S.T.; Foubister, C.; Brown, H.E.; Wells, E.K.; Armitage, S.M.; Croxson, C.H.D.; Vignoles, A.; Wilkinson, P.O.; et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the GoActive intervention to increase physical activity among UK adolescents: A cluster randomised controlled trial. PLoS Med. 2020, 17, e1003210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Corepal, R.; Best, P.; O’neill, R.; Kee, F.; Badham, J.; Dunne, L.; Miller, S.; Connolly, P.; Cupples, M.E.; van Sluijs, E.M.F.; et al. A feasibility study of ‘The StepSmart Challenge’ to promote physical activity in adolescents. Pilot. Feasibility Stud. 2019, 5, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Dudley, D.A.; Okely, A.D.; Pearson, P.; Peat, J. Engaging adolescent girls from linguistically diverse and low income backgrounds in school sport: A pilot randomised controlled trial. J. Sci. Med. Sport. 2010, 13, 217–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Ferreira Silva, R.M.; Fonseca Terra, L.; da Silva Valadão Fernandes, M.; Noll, P.R.E.S.; de Almeida, A.A.; Noll, M. Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior in High School Students: A Quasi Experimental Study via Smartphone during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Children 2023, 10, 479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Koorts, H.; Salmon, J.; Timperio, A.; Ball, K.; Macfarlane, S.; Lai, S.K.; Brown, H.; E Chappel, S.; Lewis, M.; Ridgers, N.D. Translatability of a wearable technology intervention to increase adolescent physical activity: Mixed methods implementation evaluation. J. Med. Internet Res. 2020, 22, e13573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Kroshus, E.; Hafferty, K.; Garrett, K.; Johnson, A.M.; Webb, L.; Bloom, A.; Sullivan, E.; Senturia, K.; Tandon, P.S. Feasibility and acceptability of at-home play kits for middle school physical activity promotion during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Public Health 2023, 23, 604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Lubans, D.R.; Smith, J.J.; Skinner, G.; Morgan, P.J. Development and implementation of a smartphone application to promote physical activity and reduce screen-time in adolescent boys. Front. Public. Health 2014, 2, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Moore, R.; Al-Tamimi, A.K.; Freeman, E. Investigating the Potential of a Conversational Agent (Phyllis) to Support Adolescent Health and Overcome Barriers to Physical Activity: Co-Design Study. JMIR Form Res 2024, 8, e51571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Sutherland, R.; Campbell, E.; McLaughlin, M. Scale-up of the Physical Activity 4 Everyone (PA4E1) intervention in secondary schools: 12-month implementation outcomes from a cluster randomized controlled trial. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2020, 17, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Bean, C.N.; Forneris, T.; Halsall, T. Girls just wanna have fun: A process evaluation of a female youth-driven physical activity-based life skills program. Springerplus 2014, 3, 401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Drehlich, M.; Naraine, M.; Rowe, K.; Lai, S.K.; Salmon, J.; Brown, H.; Koorts, H.; Macfarlane, S.; Ridgers, N.D. Using the technology acceptance model to explore adolescents’ perspectives on combining technologies for physical activity promotion within an intervention: Usability study. J. Med. Internet Res. 2020, 22, e15552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Lodewyk, K.R.; Beni, S.; Foley, J.; Zakaria, T.; Romy Mercier, D. A qualitative inquiry of females’ experiences with a novel high school intramural program. Phys. Educ. 2023, 80, 155–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Mitchell, F.; Gray, S.; Inchley, J. ‘This choice thing really works … ’ changes in experiences and engagement of adolescent girls in physical education classes, during a school-based physical activity programme. Phys. Educ. Sport. Pedagog. 2015, 20, 593–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. St Pierre, C.; Mitchell, J.; Guan, W.; Sacheck, J.M. Promoting physical activity and youth development in schools: The case for near-peer coaches. Front Public Health 2024, 12, 1345282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Wright, P.M.; Burton, S. Implementation and outcomes of a responsibility-based physical activity program integrated into an intact high school physical education class. J. Teach. Phys. Educ. 2008, 27, 138–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Okul, İ.; Öğretmen, Ö.; Bilimsel, A.; Becerilerine, S.; Alan, İ.; Delice, A. The Sampling Issues in Quantitative Research. Educ. Sci. Theory Practice. 2010, 10, 2002–2018. [Google Scholar]
  99. Ali, M.D.; Al Hatef, E.A.J. Types of Sampling and Sample Size Determination in Health and Social Science Research. J. Young Pharm. 2024, 16, 204–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Beck, F.; Swelam, B.A.; Dettweiler, U.; Krieger, C.; Reimers, A.K. Compensatory behavior of physical activity in adolescents—A qualitative analysis of the underlying mechanisms and influencing factors. BMC Public. Health 2024, 24, 158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. van Sluijs, E.M.F.; McMinn, A.M.; Griffin, S.J. Effectiveness of interventions to promote physical activity in children and adolescents: Systematic review of controlled trials. BMJ 2007, 335, 703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Knittle, K.; Nurmi, J.; Crutzen, R.; Hankonen, N.; Beattie, M.; Dombrowski, S.U. How can interventions increase motivation for physical activity? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Health Psychol. Rev. 2018, 12, 211–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Fu, Y.; Burns, R.D.; Hsu, Y.-W.; Zhang, P. Motivation, segmented physical activity, sedentary behavior, and weight status in adolescents: A path analysis. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport. 2022, 93, 204–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Zhang, T.; Solmon, M.A.; Gao, Z.; Kosma, M. Promoting school students’ physical activity: A social ecological perspective. J. Appl. Sport. Psychol. 2012, 24, 92–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Vaquero-Solís, M.; Gallego, D.I.; Tapia-Serrano, M.Á.; Pulido, J.J.; Sánchez-Miguel, P.A. School-based physical activity interventions in children and adolescents: A systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2020, 17, 999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Pedersen, M.R.L.; Hansen, A.F.; Elmose-Østerlund, K. Motives and barriers related to physical activity and sport across social backgrounds: Implications for health promotion. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2021, 18, 5810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Abu-Omar, K.; Rütten, A.; Burlacu, I.; Schätzlein, V.; Messing, S.; Suhrcke, M. The cost-effectiveness of physical activity interventions: A systematic review of reviews. Prev. Med. Rep. 2017, 8, 72–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Sallis, J.F.; Prochaska, J.J.; Taylor, W.C. A review of correlates of physical activity of children and adolescents. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2000, 32, 963–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Trost, S.G.; Pate, R.R.; Saunders, R.; Ward, D.S.; Dowda, M.; Felton, G. A prospective study of the determinants of physical activity in rural fifth-grade children. Prev. Med. 1997, 26, 257–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Guldager, J.D.; Andersen, P.T.; Von Seelen, J.; Leppin, A. Physical activity school intervention: Context matters. Health Educ. Res. 2018, 33, 232–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Odhus, C.O.; Kapanga, R.R.; Oele, E. Barriers to and enablers of quality improvement in primary health care in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review. PLoS Glob. Public. Health 2024, 4, e0002756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Grüne, E.; Popp, J.; Carl, J.; Pfeifer, K. What do we know about physical activity interventions in vocational education and training? A systematic review. BMC Public Health 2020, 20, 978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Carraro, N.; Gaudreau, P. Spontaneous and experimentally induced action planning and coping planning for physical activity: A meta-analysis. Psychol. Sport. Exerc. 2013, 14, 228–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Peng, S.; Othman, A.T.; Yuan, F.; Liang, J. The effectiveness of planning interventions for improving physical activity in the general population: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2022, 19, 7337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Bélanger-Gravel, A.; Godin, G.; Amireault, S. A meta-analytic review of the effect of implementation intentions on physical activity. Health Psychol. Rev. 2013, 7, 23–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Peng, S.; Othman, A.T.; Khairani, A.Z.; Zhou, Z.; Zhou, X.; Yuan, F.; Liang, J. Meta-analysis of implementation intentions interventions in promoting physical activity among university students. Sustainability 2023, 15, 12457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Gontarev, S.; Kalac, R.; Alekso, L.V. Perceived exercise benefits and barriers of non-exercising in adolescent female in the Macedonia. Res. Phys. Educ. Sport Health 2016, 5, 11–18. [Google Scholar]
  118. Young, D.R.; Felton, G.M.; Grieser, M.; Elder, J.P.; Johnson, C.; Lee, J.; Kubik, M.Y. Policies and opportunities for physical activity in middle school environments. J. Sch. Health 2007, 77, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Wright, P.M. Sport and physical activity for positive youth development related to social and emotional learning: Reflections from the know-do gap. Kinesiol. Rev. 2023, 12, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Bel-Serrat, S.; Klingenstein, P.; Marques-Previ, M.; Hennessy, E.; Murrin, C. Perceived barriers to vegetable intake among urban adolescents from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds: A qualitative study from the perspective of youth workers and teachers. Physiol. Behav. 2023, 262, 114074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Moore, R.; Edmondson, L.; Gregory, M.; Griffiths, K.; Freeman, E. Barriers and facilitators to physical activity and further digital exercise intervention among inactive British adolescents in secondary schools: A qualitative study with physical education teachers. Front Public Health 2023, 11, 1193669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Murphy, M.H.; O’kane, S.M.; Carlin, A.; Lahart, I.M.; Doherty, L.C.; Jago, R.; McDermott, G.; Faulkner, M.; Gallagher, A.M. Effectiveness of the Walking in ScHools (WISH) study, a peer-led walking intervention for adolescent girls: Results of a cluster randomised controlled trial. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2024, 21, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. de Mello, G.T.; Bertuol, C.; Minatto, G.; Filho, V.C.B.; Oldenburg, B.; Leech, R.M.; Silva, K.S. A systematic review of the clustering and correlates of physical activity and sedentary behavior among boys and girls. BMC Public. Health 2023, 23, 372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Marques, A.; Henriques-Neto, D.; Peralta, M.; Martins, J.; Demetriou, Y.; Schönbach, D.M.I.; de Matos, M.G. Prevalence of physical activity among adolescents from 105 low, middle, and high-income countries. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2020, 17, 3145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Peng, B.; Ng, J.Y.Y.; Ha, A.S. Barriers and facilitators to physical activity for young adult women: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative literature. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2023, 20, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Walker, R.; House, D.; Salway, R.; Emm-Collison, L.; Hollander, L.E.; Sansum, K.; Breheny, K.; Churchward, S.; Williams, J.G.; de Vocht, F.; et al. The new normal for children’s physical activity and screen viewing: A multi-perspective qualitative analysis of behaviours a year after the COVID-19 lockdowns in the UK. BMC Public. Health 2023, 23, 1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Cowley, E.S.; Watson, P.M.; Foweather, L.; Belton, S.; Thompson, A.; Thijssen, D.; Wagenmakers, A.J.M. “Girls aren’t meant to exercise”: Perceived Influences on physical activity among adolescent girls—The HERizon project. Children 2021, 8, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Wendt, A.; Machado, A.K.F.; Costa, C.S.; Rachadel, D.; Crochemore-Silva, I.; Brazo-Sayavera, J.; Hembecker, P.K.; Ricardo, L.I.C. Health inequalities in Brazilian adolescents: Measuring and mapping gaps in a cross-sectional school-based survey. Health Sci Rep 2023, 6, e1761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Mackenbach, J.P. The persistence of health inequalities in modern welfare states: The explanation of a paradox. Soc. Sci. Med. 2012, 75, 761–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Lucas, P.J.; McIntosh, K.; Petticrew, M.; Roberts, H.M.; Shiell, A. Financial Benefits for Child Health and Well-Being in Low Income or Socially Disadvantaged Families in Developed World Countries. Campbell Syst. Rev. 2008, 4, 1–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Förster, M.F.; Tóth, I.G. Cross-Country evidence of the multiple causes of inequality changes in the OECD area. In Handbook of Income Distribution; Elsevier: Amsterdam, 2015; Volume 2, pp. 1729–1843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Pratt, M.; Sarmiento, O.L.; Montes, F.; Ogilvie, D.; Marcus, B.H.; Perez, L.G.; Brownson, R.C. The implications of megatrends in information and communication technology and transportation for changes in global physical activity. Lancet 2012, 380, 282–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Belur, J.; Tompson, L.; Thornton, A.; Simon, M. Interrater reliability in systematic review methodology: Exploring variation in coder decision-making. Sociol. Methods Res. 2021, 50, 837–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Flow diagram of study identification, screening, and inclusion in the systematic review (PRISMA 2020).
Figure 1. Flow diagram of study identification, screening, and inclusion in the systematic review (PRISMA 2020).
Ijerph 22 00881 g001
Figure 2. Total number published by geography. Geographic distribution of interven-tion studies worldwide and frequency in percentage (one study covered multiple countries). Created by the authors using Figma® software (Figma, Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA), available at: https://www.figma.com/ (accessed on 21 September 2024).
Figure 2. Total number published by geography. Geographic distribution of interven-tion studies worldwide and frequency in percentage (one study covered multiple countries). Created by the authors using Figma® software (Figma, Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA), available at: https://www.figma.com/ (accessed on 21 September 2024).
Ijerph 22 00881 g002
Figure 3. Barriers identified by intervention studies. Number of barriers identified in each intervention study, grouped into interpersonal, intrapersonal, and environmental categories.
Figure 3. Barriers identified by intervention studies. Number of barriers identified in each intervention study, grouped into interpersonal, intrapersonal, and environmental categories.
Ijerph 22 00881 g003
Table 4. Methodological quality assessment and strength of evidence for quantitative and mixed studies.
Table 4. Methodological quality assessment and strength of evidence for quantitative and mixed studies.
Conflict of InterestsEthical ApprovalDowns and Black ChecklistGRADE
Study (Year)Section ASection BSection CSection DTotalScore#
1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526
QUANTITATIVE (n = 18)
01Aceves-Martins, M. et al., (2022) [62]NoYes1111211011111001011111111123/2785%Ijerph 22 00881 i001
02Andruschko, J. et al., (2018) [63]Yes1111211001111000111111111122/2781%Ijerph 22 00881 i002
03Åvitsland A. et al., (2020) [64]NoYes1111211011111011111111111125/2793%Ijerph 22 00881 i001
04Barbosa Filho, V.C. et al., (2016) [65]Yes1111211011111001111111111124/2789%Ijerph 22 00881 i002
05Bianchi-Hayes J. et al., (2018) [67]Yes1111211011111001111111111124/2789%Ijerph 22 00881 i001
06Chen, Y. et al., (2023) [68]-Yes1111110011111000111111111121/2778%Ijerph 22 00881 i003
07Christiansen, L.B. et al., (2018) [69]Yes1111211011110101111111111124/2789%Ijerph 22 00881 i001
08Cook, T.L. et al., (2014) [70]NoYes1111011001110001111111111120/2774%Ijerph 22 00881 i001
9Dunton, G.F. et al., (2007) [71]Yes1111211001111001111111111123/2785%Ijerph 22 00881 i001
10Gråstén, A. et al., (2015) [72]Yes1111211001111001011111001019/2770%Ijerph 22 00881 i001
11Jamner, M.S. et al., (2004) [73]Yes1101111011000001111111111119/2770%Ijerph 22 00881 i002
12Lennox, A. et al., (2013) [74]Yes1111110010110000101011000114/2752%Ijerph 22 00881 i003
13Lindgren, E.C. et al., (2011) [75]Yes1111111011000001111111111120/2774%Ijerph 22 00881 i002
14Sanaeinasab, H. et al., (2012) [76]NoYes1111211001110001111111111122/2781%Ijerph 22 00881 i002
15Taymoori, P. et al., (2008) [77]NoYes1111111011110101111111111123/2785%Ijerph 22 00881 i001
16Tennfjord, M.K. et al., (2023) [78]NoYes1111211011110001010111001119/2770%Ijerph 22 00881 i001
17Verswijveren, S.J.J.M. et al., (2022) [79]NoYes1111211011000001111111111121/2778%Ijerph 22 00881 i001
18Wilson, D.K. et al., (2011) [80]No1111211011111001111111111124/2789%Ijerph 22 00881 i001
MIXED (n = 10)
19Carlin, A. et al., (2018) [81]NoYes1111211001110001110111111121/2778%Ijerph 22 00881 i001
20Corder, K. et al., (2020) [83]NoYes1111211111111001111111111125/2793%Ijerph 22 00881 i001
21Corepal, R. et al., (2019) [84]NoYes1111011011110001111111110120/2774%Ijerph 22 00881 i001
22Dudley, D.A. et al., (2010) [85]NoYes1111211011110001111111111123/2785%Ijerph 22 00881 i001
23Ferreira Silva, R.M. et al., (2023) [86]NoYes1111211011110001111111111123/2785%Ijerph 22 00881 i002
24Koorts, H. et al., (2020) [87]NoYes1111111011110000111111111121/2778%Ijerph 22 00881 i001
25Kroshus, E. et al., (2023) [88]NoYes1111211011110001111111111123/2785%Ijerph 22 00881 i001
26Lubans, D.R. et al., (2014) [89]NoYes1111210011110001111111111122/2781%Ijerph 22 00881 i002
27Moore, R. et al., (2024) [90]NoYes1110101010110000111111110117/2763%Ijerph 22 00881 i003
28Sutherland, R. et al., (2020) [91]NoYes1111211011110001111111111123/2785%Ijerph 22 00881 i001
QUALITATIVE (n = 6)
29Bean, C.N. et al., (2014) [92]NoYes NA ☆ ☆ ☆
30Drehlich, M. et al., (2020) [93]NoYes NA ☆ ☆ ☆
31Lodewyk, K.R. et al., (2023) [94]-Yes NA ☆ ☆ ☆
32Mitchell, F. et al., (2015) [95]-Yes NA ☆ ☆ ☆
33Pierre, S.T. et al., (2024) [96]NoYes NA ☆ ☆ ☆
34Wright, P.M. & Burton, S. (2008) [97]-No NA ☆ ☆ ☆
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Terra, L.F.; Rezende, L.M.T.d.; Ferreira Silva, R.M.; Costa, W.P.d.; Miñana-Signes, V.; Noll, M.; Silva, P.R.E. Interventions on Barriers to the Participation of Adolescents in Physical Activity: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2025, 22, 881. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22060881

AMA Style

Terra LF, Rezende LMTd, Ferreira Silva RM, Costa WPd, Miñana-Signes V, Noll M, Silva PRE. Interventions on Barriers to the Participation of Adolescents in Physical Activity: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2025; 22(6):881. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22060881

Chicago/Turabian Style

Terra, Lauryane Fonseca, Leonardo Mateus Teixeira de Rezende, Regina Márcia Ferreira Silva, Woska Pires da Costa, Vicente Miñana-Signes, Matias Noll, and Priscilla Rayanne E. Silva. 2025. "Interventions on Barriers to the Participation of Adolescents in Physical Activity: A Systematic Review" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 22, no. 6: 881. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22060881

APA Style

Terra, L. F., Rezende, L. M. T. d., Ferreira Silva, R. M., Costa, W. P. d., Miñana-Signes, V., Noll, M., & Silva, P. R. E. (2025). Interventions on Barriers to the Participation of Adolescents in Physical Activity: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 22(6), 881. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22060881

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop