Impact of Active Tourism on Physical Activity in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review (2015–2025)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents a systematic review of an innovative topic, namely active tourism and its importance as a resource for children and adolescents. However, in order for the article to be published, a series of recommendations are made to the authors, section by section:

ABSTRACT AND KEYWORDS
1.    It is recommended that keywords should not be included in the title.

INTRODUCTION
1.    A review of the benefits of active tourism is recommended, as in some sections similar statements are repeated and could be combined to avoid redundancy.

METHOD
1.    The formulation of the research question is recommended, based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria following the PICO model (recommendation).
2. Was the review registered in PROSPERO or another registry, or was at least a preliminary literature search conducted using a prior internal protocol?
3. On what exact dates was the database search conducted?
4. Was any tool or software used for the study selection process, such as Rayyan or similar? Please specify.
5. How many reviewers were involved in screening the studies based on the title/abstract? Was this done in duplicate, with cross-checking to minimise errors? Please specify.

RESULTS
1.    For the initial presentation of the results based on the different variables, it is recommended to use a figure that clarifies their presentation.
2.    Review citation rules when presenting the research in Table 3.

DISCUSSION
1.    In this section, although there is a very good discussion related to the results shown above, it is recommended that when presenting general terms or conclusions, such as ‘these programmes increase physical activity,’ the type of study and the sample used for such evidence be taken into account, explicitly mentioning which studies support each of these statements.

REFERENCES
1.    A thorough review is recommended to comply with citation standards. For example, in some journal articles, the volume is in italics and in others it is not (e.g., correct reference 1), as well as always presenting the DOI in the same way (e.g., correct reference 11), journal title without italics (e.g., correct reference 13), etc.

Author Response

Please review the attached document, the report of corrections and responses to the reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors state (p5, L192) that inclusion criterion (b) requires “healthy participants aged 6-18 years,” however in the Results section (p9, L317-320) they report that 753 participants (44.8%) aged 18-30 years from a single study were included in the analysis. This deviation from the pre-specified inclusion criterion is problematic for three reasons: 1) it represents nearly half of the entire sample and fundamentally contradicts the stated age range, (2) the justification, "a relevant developmental transition with respect to educational context and PA habits", appears only in the Results section as a post-hoc rationalization and lacks operationalization or citation, contrary to PRISMA 2020 requirements for pre-specification and transparency, and (3) the Quality Assessment Tool's Criterion B (Table 2) requires "healthy children or adolescents aged between 6 and 18 years," however Slak et al. received a score of “2” (fully described) despite including only 18-30 yearold participants, indicating inconsistent criterion application. This heterogeneity compromises the review's focus on children and adolescents. Furthermore, the authors report (p9, L320-322) that “data from 20 families (4.5%), comprising 35 parents and 38 children, were reported in two studies.” However, this represents a second significant deviation from the stated inclusion criterion. In the Methods section (p5, L193-194), the authors state that studies were eligible only if they “employed longitudinal, cross-sectional, or mixed-methods designs.” However, the results reveal a significant deviation from this criterion. In the Quality Assessment Table (Table 2, p7) and Table 3 (p12-14), four of the thirteen included studies are described as quasi-experimental designs. These 4 studies represent almost 30% of the included sample but are not mentioned in the stated inclusion criteria. Furthermore, the Results section (p8, L309) misclassifies these quasi-experimental pre-post studies as “four longitudinal” studies, which is technically inaccurate because quasi-experimental pre-post designs with short durations are not longitudinal studies. Additionally, the inclusion of four qualitative studies is not mentioned in the design criteria. Authors should either a) revise the inclusion criterion in Methods, (b) reclassify and accurately report designs in Results, or (c) exclude studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

The authors define “active tourism” as “a participatory form of recreational mobility” (Introduction, p2, L59-60) involving travel-based experiences (adventure tourism, ecotourism, sports tourism). However, the review systematically includes mostly school-based adventure education programs and local outdoor recreation activities, not tourism interventions. Only 1-2 of the 13 included studies actually represent active tourism as defined. It is suggested the authors to adopt one of following approaches: a) exclude school-based and local recreation interventions, b) revise the title (for example “Adventure Education, Outdoor Recreation, and Active Tourism Interventions Promoting Physical Activity in Youth.”) Redefine inclusion criteria to encompass all three intervention types and stratify results by intervention type (tourism vs. education vs. recreation) with separate conclusions and policy implications for each sector, c) present three distinct analyses for active tourism, adventure education programs, and outdoor recreation activities, with separate conclusions acknowledging differences in implementation, cost, and applicability. 

The discussion section should be revised according to the corrections made in the other sections.

The proposed corrections require significant revisions to the methodology, results, and inclusion criteria to ensure clarity, with key corrections related to the definition, application of criteria, and classification of studies. The paper requires major revisions.

Author Response

Please review the attached document, the report of corrections and responses to the reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all, I would like to thank the editor for the opportunity to review this manuscript, which addresses the topic of active tourism or sports tourism, a field that is both timely and highly relevant. In this paper, the authors present a systematic review that aims to analyze the scientific literature published between 2015 and 2025 examining the impact of active tourism as a strategy to promote physical activity in children and adolescents.

In the introduction, the authors clearly describe the context to which they direct their attention; however, a well-defined research question is not explicitly stated in the manuscript. In scientific research, a systematic review should be guided by a clearly formulated research question, as it determines both the scope and the methodological approach of the review. The authors are encouraged to explicitly state the research question(s) in the introduction in order to strengthen the rationale and transparency of the review. Rather than broadly stating an intention to analyze the scientific literature examining the phenomenon under study, the review could be guided by a more focused question, such as whether active tourism can be considered an effective strategy for promoting physical activity in children and adolescents. Overall, this manuscript addresses a timely and relevant topic and presents a well-conducted systematic review following the PRISMA guidelines. The methodology is clearly described, and the results and discussion are coherent and consistent with the included studies. However, the manuscript would benefit from the explicit formulation of one or more research questions in the introduction, as well as from a clearer alignment of the discussion with those questions. Addressing these points would strengthen the clarity, rigor, and overall contribution of the review.

Author Response

Please review the attached document, the report of corrections and responses to the reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors 

I was offered a chance of reviewing your article and I found it interesting, but 

still the work needs some enhancing in some sections. 

Below, please find some comments and suggestions that may help you in strengthening your massage from your research. 

Title and abstract are both informative and in line with the body of the text and the concept of the review. I have some doubts about this key-word movement-based - although you explain it in the text of Introduction, but still I link body-movement with the idea of active movement teaching/learning process. but if you think this word defines your scope of research, well, that is fine. Consider who is your target - movement teaching specialists or tourist specialists and analytics?, because they will be looking via the key words and in such case I would suggest finding something more closely connected to your scope of review area. 

Introduction is well-written and provides a reader with detailed information of the area of tourism in general, but... I think the case of sport tourism is treated with too little attention - it is often the excitement of travelling to big sporting event like big matches, Euro, World Cups or Olympic Games that inspires young people to become more active, to take up some new sports ect. I think this alley ought to be explored more -find some research on this topic and provide findings or state that there is lack of such works and acknowledge the research gap. 

Also, for your consideration, maybe outdoor recreation and outdoor adventure education programmes are worth exploring and citing in the context of your Introduction (this is strong trend in Scandinavian systems of education for example). 

Methodology section has been enhanced already, as I can see, but on page 7 from the top of the page there is a description of the scoring system for each publication and you give 3 levels High, Medium and Low, and then in the table 2 you only included 12 with the High Quality. There is nowhere mentioned what happened with the rest and why were they excluded? and yet, the similar description can be found below the table - there are too many repetitions of the same contents. I think you should avoid doubled information. 

The Results section starts with the "Overall results of the selection process.'''' subsection - I think this is not the right place for this subsection as this is not connected to the findings that You were looking for stated in the last paragraph of the Introduction "Can active tourism be considered an effective strategy for promoting physical activity among children and adolescents? " 

The number of articles and the process of selection does not refer to that objective of your review, and thus I think this subsection should be included in the Methods and Procedure section and Results should begin with "Results of the relationship and impact of the active tourism..." 

In the Results section there is an interesting figure 2 - Is this your own idea and design ? This should be clearly stated. 

Discussion is done in an academic manner, with references to the relevant up-to-date literature of the subject area. If I were to suggest something I would advice on showing how the situation can be improved ? maybe through the better in-school tourism education (adventure and outdoor programs) or via state policy on tourism ect. 

Conclusions are in line with the research questions and refer to the findings. 

Generally, the text study is a solid piece of academic work but it needs some more work to become interesting for a broader circle of readers (education specialists, policy planners). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

The attached document contains the responses to the reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your thorough revision of the paper and the detailed response. The key methodological and conceptual issues raised (age range and inclusion criteria, study design classification, and the definition and operationalization of active tourism) have now been addressed clearly and consistently across the Methods, Results, and Tables. The main limitations of the field (heterogeneity of definitions and interventions, limited number and duration of primary studies, and constraints on long‑term inferences) are appropriately mentioned and discussed in the manuscript. In its current form, I consider that the methodological concerns from the initial review have been satisfactorily resolved.

Author Response

The attached document contains the responses to the reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf