Analysis of Factors Associated with Active and Sedentary Behaviors of Children and Adolescents Considering Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Theory: A Scoping Review Protocol

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to review your manuscript titled “Analysis of factors associated with active and sedentary behaviors of children and adolescents considering Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory: a scoping review protocol”. I find the protocol to be well-structured, methodologically sound, and of significant scientific interest.

Below, I offer a few suggestions to further improve the manuscript prior to publication:

Initial Format

At the beginning of the document, the phrase “Type of the Paper (Review)” is redundant. I suggest replacing it simply with “Review”.

Introduction

The introduction is rich in content and well-articulated. To further strengthen the theoretical and methodological framework, you may consider citing studies that address methodological approaches in youth sports learning, such as:

Montesano et al. (2019) “Improvement in soccer learning and methodology for young athletes” published in the Journal of Physical Education and Sport.

Materials and Methods

This section is clear and detailed. However, to enhance readability, I recommend replacing the bulleted lists with tables, particularly for:

Eligibility criteria (PCC)

Search strategy for each database

Data extraction process

Bibliography

The reference list does not fully adhere to the journal’s bibliographic style guide. I encourage you to consult the Adolescents style guide and ensure all references are formatted accordingly (e.g., author format, title, journal, DOI, etc.).

I am confident that these minor adjustments will further enhance the quality of an already excellent manuscript.

Best regards

Author Response

Dear Authors,

 

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to review your manuscript titled “Analysis of factors associated with active and sedentary behaviors of children and adolescents considering Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory: a scoping review protocol”. I find the protocol to be well-structured, methodologically sound, and of significant scientific interest.

R: Thanks.

Below, I offer a few suggestions to further improve the manuscript prior to publication:

 

Initial Format

 

At the beginning of the document, the phrase “Type of the Paper (Review)” is redundant. I suggest replacing it simply with “Review”.

R: Done.

 

Introduction

 

The introduction is rich in content and well-articulated. To further strengthen the theoretical and methodological framework, you may consider citing studies that address methodological approaches in youth sports learning, such as: “Montesano et al. (2019) “Improvement in soccer learning and methodology for young athletes” published in the Journal of Physical Education and Sport.”

R: We thank the reviewer for the valuable literature suggestion. We analyzed the study by Montesano et al. (2019). While we recognize the importance of the study in the field of training methodology, the scope of our protocol focuses on factors associated with active and sedentary behaviors from health, educational and sports science in light of bioecological theory. Therefore, we chose not to include it in the text.

 

Materials and Methods

 

This section is clear and detailed. However, to enhance readability, I recommend replacing the bulleted lists with tables, particularly for:

• Eligibility criteria (PCC)

R: Done.

• Search strategy for each database

R: It is in Supplementary file 2 (Appendix A.2)

• Data extraction process

R: We chose to keep it in topic format.

 

Bibliography

 

The reference list does not fully adhere to the journal’s bibliographic style guide. I encourage you to consult the Adolescents style guide and ensure all references are formatted accordingly (e.g., author format, title, journal, DOI, etc.).

R: Done.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

First of all i would like to thank the reviewer for giving me the possibility to review this interesting work. I think that the approach is interesting but the metodology and the content should be improved. 

Abstract

Authors stated "Prefeerred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for Scoping Reviews. " based on my knoweldge there is a specific guideline for scoping review different from systematic and metanalysis for this reason i suggest to revised the content and also add the reference along the statement. 

Introduction 

It is too long, the focus now is the explanation of the theory but i suggest to put more the focus on what authors would like to do and also some detail regarding children and not only adolescents. 

Materials and methods

• in the PPCT method the explanation of T is missing
• 2.7 Data synthesis paragraph should be enrich, authors should include more details in the procedures they would like to follow to extract which kind of important data. 
• Finally no risk of bias is described. I know that this is not mandatory for a scoping review but i believe that considering this protocol a risk of bias procedures can be empowered the work 

Discussion 

The discussion is only focus on future publication instead authors should focused also on future implication

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

 

First of all i would like to thank the reviewer for giving me the possibility to review this interesting work. I think that the approach is interesting but the metodology and the content should be improved.

R: Thanks.

 

Abstract

 

Authors stated "Prefeerred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for Scoping Reviews. " based on my knoweldge there is a specific guideline for scoping review different from systematic and metanalysis for this reason i suggest to revised the content and also add the reference along the statement.

R: Although the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) is the recommended checklist for scoping reviews, we have chosen to suppress this information from the abstract.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, Moher D, Peters MDJ, Horsley T, Weeks L, Hempel S, Akl EA, Chang C, McGowan J, Stewart L, Hartling L, Aldcroft A, Wilson MG, Garritty C, Lewin S, Godfrey CM, Macdonald MT, Langlois EV, Soares-Weiser K, Moriarty J, Clifford T, Tunçalp Ö, Straus SE. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467-473. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850. Epub 2018 Sep 4. PMID: 30178033.

 

Introduction

 

It is too long, the focus now is the explanation of the theory but i suggest to put more the focus on what authors would like to do and also some detail regarding children and not only adolescents.

R: The text of the Introduction has been modified to accommodate the requests made by the reviewer.

 

Materials and methods

 

in the PPCT method the explanation of T is missing

R: This information is in the Introduction.

“Thus, the main characteristic of this theory is the dynamic interactions between its four pillars: the process, the person, the context, and the time, with the emphasis centred on proximal processes (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2007). The model is conceptualised from a bioecological perspective, in which the individual and context relate and define each other in a reciprocal way (Bronfenbrenner, 2005). The development of the individual in the theoretical-methodological model refers to the continuity and change in the biopsychological characteristics of human beings, both individually and in groups, throughout the person's life course and through generations and historical time (Bronfenbrenner, 1999). Human development occurs through gradually more complex processes of reciprocal interaction between an active subject and the people, objects, and symbols of their immediate environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1995). This process of reciprocity is called the proximal process, which, to have effects on development, must occur regularly over an extended period of time (Nobre, Valentini & Rusidill, 2020). Therefore, the concept of development for Bronfenbrenner refers to the result of a joint function between a proximal process, the characteristics of the developing person, the immediate context in which he or she lives, and the amount and frequency of time in which the developing person has been exposed to a specific proximal process and the environment (Figure 1), this set being called the PPCT (Process-Person-Context-Time) model of development (Bhering & Sarkis, 2009)”

In addition, Figure 1 has been included in the text for a better understanding of the model.

 

2.7 Data synthesis paragraph should be enrich, authors should include more details in the procedures they would like to follow to extract which kind of important data.

R: Done. The section of Data synthesis was rewritten.

 

Finally no risk of bias is described. I know that this is not mandatory for a scoping review but i believe that considering this protocol a risk of bias procedures can be empowered the work

R: This information is in the Data synthesis.

“Given that this study is a scoping review with general objectives, it was decided not to conduct a risk of bias assessment of the eligible studies (Peters et al., 2015; Pollock et al., 2023). It is recommended that subsequent specific systematic reviews be conducted based on the results of this scoping review.”

 

Peters, M.D; Godfrey, C.M; Khalil, H; McInerney, P; Parker, D; Soares, C.B. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int. J. Evid.-Based Healthc. 2015, 13, 141–146.

Pollock, D; Peters, MDJ; Khalil, H; McInerney, P; Alexander, L; Tricco, A; Evans, C; de Moraes, EB; Godfrey, C; Pieper, D; Saran, A; Stern, C; Munn, Z. Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis 2023, 21, 520-532

 

Discussion

 

The discussion is only focus on future publication instead authors should focused also on future implication

R: Done. The following text was included in the Discussion.

“The proposed scoping review is expected to provide a comprehensive map of how Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory has been applied to active and sedentary behaviors in children and adolescents. It is anticipated that the findings will highlight which components of the theory (e.g., "bioecology" vs. "ecology") and which PPCT elements (e.g., Process, Person, Context, Time) have been most frequently, or infrequently, investigated. For instance, the study expects to identify whether the literature is overly focused on specific levels (e.g., the Context) while neglecting the full, interactive PPCT model. The review also aims to map the methodological tools used in this field, thereby identifying gaps and providing a clear framework for future research on the complex, multi-level determinants of youth PA and SB in different contexts that promote physical activity, such as at school, in the community, and in sports initiation programs.”

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses an interesting topic related to the correlates of active and sedentary lifestyle. Still there are several concerns that need to be addressed. More specifically:

It is rather unusual to report a protocol for a scoping review as the steps to perform it are described (e.g.. PRISMA, CONSORT).

In the introduction, the authors describe the Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory but they don't explicitly describe which variables or constructs of the theory are relevant to the physical activity or sedentary lifestyle.

The literature review on PA and sedentary behavior is rather limited and treats these behaviors as one, whereas they should be treated as different behaviors.

The study does not provide a convincing rationale for the scoping review. In addition, the introduction does not specify which variables will be included in the review. In this sense, the topic of the review is rather broad including an excessive number of variables, settings (e.g., physical education, sports etc) in two different behaviors.

PRISMA is not a theoretical basis as the authors suggest, but a methodology to report the process of conducting a review.

Several of the key words aimed to be used are not relevant to the study (e.g., motor competence, motor skill, motor development).

Several parts of the method are repeated.

The manuscript does not describe the method to evaluate the quality of the articles included in the review.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language requires proofediting as there are several instances of awkward writing.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

 

The manuscript addresses an interesting topic related to the correlates of active and sedentary lifestyle. Still there are several concerns that need to be addressed. More specifically:

R: Thanks.

 

It is rather unusual to report a protocol for a scoping review as the steps to perform it are described (e.g.. PRISMA, CONSORT).

R: OK.

 

In the introduction, the authors describe the Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory but they don't explicitly describe which variables or constructs of the theory are relevant to the physical activity or sedentary lifestyle.

R: Done. The following text was included in the Introduction.

“When applying this theory, the factors associated with PA and SB can be better understood. Person characteristics, including individual attributes and biological factors, as well as proximal processes, defined by reciprocal interactions in the immediate environment, are fundamental variables. However, preliminary evidence from the literature suggests that, to date, studies applying this theory have disproportionately focused on the context component (Woods et al., 2015; Hyeonho Yu et al., 2021). Variables within the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem are frequently cited as the primary determinants associated with PA and SB. Conversely, the roles of the process itself, the interactions and the time, specifically the chronosystem, in addition to the complete, interactive PPCT model, appear to be less explored. Thus, a key goal of this scoping review is to map precisely which variables have been most associated with PA and SB, and to verify how and how often the four components of the PPCT model have been fully applied in the literature.”

 

The literature review on PA and sedentary behavior is rather limited and treats these behaviors as one, whereas they should be treated as different behaviors.

R: The Introduction has been modified, and it is now clearer in the first two paragraphs that we treat these as independent constructs, even analyzing them through different theoretical models.

“Low levels of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and high levels of sedentary behavior (SB) are two of the largest public health concerns worldwide (Werneck et al., 2019). Global trends of physical activity (PA) levels show that, between 2001 and 2016, 81% of adolescents did not meet the World Health Organization MVPA recommendations (e.g., an average of 60 minutes per day of moderate-to vigorous-intensity, mostly aerobic, physical activity, across the week), and it is estimated that four in five adolescents world-wide are insufficiently active (Guthold et al., 2020). Considering that the regular practice of PA contributes to human development, as well as being related to the prevention and treatment of chronic non-communicable diseases, such as heart disease, stroke, and diabetes (WHO, 2019), reduced PA levels represent a public health problem.

The perspective of PA and SB needs to be expanded (Guerra et al., 2019). Reducing levels of insufficient PA and time spent in SB is a complex challenge, at a global level, especially because it is necessary to consider several factors, including social, demographic, economic, and behavioral aspects, among others (Santos et al., 2019). It is understood that factors of a biological, behavioral, environmental, and social interaction nature can influence PA habits and SB (Bauman et al., 2012). Thus, there is a need for greater exploration of studies in this vein, with methodologies that seek to contemplate the complexity of the phenomenon. In this context, the literature contains a growing number of studies anchored in ecological theories to explain the practice of PA (Sallis et al., 2006) and SB (Owen et al., 2011), highlighting the need to consider the interrelationships between correlates from different domains, such as intrapersonal and interpersonal characteristics, the built environment, and the political environment. In these cases, the ecological models used originate from the ecological theory of human development by Urie Bronfenbrenner, which the author began to construct in the late 1970s.”

 

The study does not provide a convincing rationale for the scoping review.

R: The text of the Introduction has been modified to accommodate the requests made by the reviewer.

 

In addition, the introduction does not specify which variables will be included in the review.

R: The aim of the proposed study is to verify, explore, and map the existing literature concerning the utilization and application of Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory in PA and SB research from health, educational, and sports science areas. It is anticipated that the results of the scoping review will (1) identify how and how often the four components of the PPCT model have been isolated and fully applied in the literature, and (2) confirm which variables have been most commonly associated with PA and SB.

The following text was included in the Introduction.

“When applying this theory, the factors associated with PA and SB can be better understood. Person characteristics, including individual attributes and biological factors, as well as proximal processes, defined by reciprocal interactions in the immediate environment, are fundamental variables. However, preliminary evidence from the literature suggests that, to date, studies applying this theory have disproportionately focused on the context component (Woods et al., 2015; Hyeonho Yu et al., 2021). Variables within the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem are frequently cited as the primary determinants associated with PA and SB. Conversely, the roles of the process itself, the interactions and the time, specifically the chronosystem, in addition to the complete, interactive PPCT model, appear to be less explored. Thus, a key goal of this scoping review is to map precisely which variables have been most associated with PA and SB, and to verify how and how often the four components of the PPCT model have been fully applied in the literature.

Although some studies stand out by taking into account different determinants of PA and SB (Alosaimi et al., 2023; Falck et al., 2024; Koh et al., 2022), analysis of the literature demonstrates that there is still no clarifying description of the multiple factors that determine the strong variability in children and adolescents, particularly when related to the recognition of people's structural and functional levels, including biological, cognitive, emotional, social, and behavioral aspects (De Carvalho-Barreto, 2016). In this sense, the aim of the proposed study is to verify, explore, and map the existing literature concerning the utilization and application of Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory in PA and SB re-search from health, educational, and sports science areas. It is anticipated that the results of the scoping review will (1) identify how and how often the four components of the PPCT model have been isolated and fully applied in the literature, and (2) confirm which variables have been most commonly associated with PA and SB.”

 

In this sense, the topic of the review is rather broad including an excessive number of variables, settings (e.g., physical education, sports etc) in two different behaviors.

R:

Considering that physical activity is defined as any bodily movement produced by skeletal muscles that results in energy expenditure (Caspersen, Powell & Christenson, 1985);

Considering that sedentary behavior can be defined as a set of activities with energy expenditure ≤ 1.5 metabolic equivalents, in sitting, lying, or reclining positions, during the waking period (Tremblay et al., 2017);

Considering that physical activity and sedentary behavior are independent and multidimensional constructs that can manifest in different contexts;

Considering that the present study aims to identify information from health, educational and sports sciences research studies that have used Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory to verify the complex factors associated with physical activity and sedentary behavior in children and adolescents;

In this sense, we opted for a broader selection of databases, as well as keywords, to ensure a search consistent with the objective proposed by the study, which is to verify studies that considered Bronfenbrenner's theory in different manifestations of physical activity and in different contexts.

 

 

Caspersen CJ, Powell KE, Christenson GM. Physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness: definitions and distinctions for health-related research. Public Health Rep. 1985 Mar-Apr;100(2):126-31.

Tremblay MS, Aubert S, Barnes JD, Saunders TJ, Carson V, Latimer‑Cheung AE, et al. Sedentary Behavior Research Network (SBRN) – Terminology Consensus Project process and outcome. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14:75.

 

PRISMA is not a theoretical basis as the authors suggest, but a methodology to report the process of conducting a review.

R: Thank you for the suggestion. It has been corrected.

 

Several of the key words aimed to be used are not relevant to the study (e.g., motor competence, motor skill, motor development).

R:

Considering that physical activity is defined as any bodily movement produced by skeletal muscles that results in energy expenditure (Caspersen, Powell & Christenson, 1985);

Considering that sedentary behavior can be defined as a set of activities with energy expenditure ≤ 1.5 metabolic equivalents, in sitting, lying, or reclining positions, during the waking period (Tremblay et al., 2017);

Considering that physical activity and sedentary behavior are independent and multidimensional constructs that can manifest in different contexts;

Considering that the development of motor competence, motor development, and motor skills are related to the practice of physical activity (Stodden et al., 2008);

Considering that the present study aims to identify information from health, educational and sports sciences research studies that have used Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory to verify the complex factors associated with physical activity and sedentary behavior in children and adolescents;

In this sense, we opted for a broader selection of databases, as well as keywords, to ensure a search consistent with the objective proposed by the study, which is to verify studies that considered Bronfenbrenner's theory in different manifestations of physical activity and in different contexts.

 

Caspersen CJ, Powell KE, Christenson GM. Physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness: definitions and distinctions for health-related research. Public Health Rep. 1985 Mar-Apr;100(2):126-31.

Tremblay MS, Aubert S, Barnes JD, Saunders TJ, Carson V, Latimer‑Cheung AE, et al. Sedentary Behavior Research Network (SBRN) – Terminology Consensus Project process and outcome. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14:75.

Stodden DF, Goodway JD, Langendorfer SJ, Roberton MA, Rudisall ME, Garcia C, et al. A developmental perspective on the role of motor skill competence in physical activity: an emergent relationship. Quest. 2008;60(2):290–306.

 

Several parts of the method are repeated.

R: Thank you for the suggestion. It has been corrected.

 

The manuscript does not describe the method to evaluate the quality of the articles included in the review.

R: This information is in the Data synthesis.

“A narrative synthesis of the extracted data will be conducted, structured around Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory and the PPCT model. The synthesis will be performed in two main stages.

In the first stage, a descriptive and quantitative mapping of the included studies will be conducted. This will involve summarizing key characteristics (e.g., country in which the study was carried out, follow-up period, study design, and instruments used to evaluate the variables) and tabulating the frequency of factors associated with active and/or sedentary behaviors. These factors will be categorised according to the PPCT model (Process, Person, Context, Time) and its corresponding ecological levels (Micro, Meso, Exo, Macro, Chrono).

In the second stage, a narrative integration of the findings will be developed. This synthesis will move beyond a simple description to identify patterns, convergences, and gaps in the literature. A specific focus will be placed on synthesizing evidence regarding the interactions reported between different ecological levels (e.g., how contextual factors moderate proximal processes). To provide a more granular analysis, where data permits, the synthesis will be stratified by key study characteristics, such as (i) age group (children vs. adolescents), (ii) measurement type (objective/device-based vs. subjective/self-report), and (iii) geographic region or income setting.

Given that this study is a scoping review with general objectives, it was decided not to conduct a risk of bias assessment of the eligible studies (Peters et al., 2015; Pollock et al., 2023). It is recommended that subsequent specific systematic reviews be conducted based on the results of this scoping review.”

 

Peters, M.D; Godfrey, C.M; Khalil, H; McInerney, P; Parker, D; Soares, C.B. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int. J. Evid.-Based Healthc. 2015, 13, 141–146.

Pollock, D; Peters, MDJ; Khalil, H; McInerney, P; Alexander, L; Tricco, A; Evans, C; de Moraes, EB; Godfrey, C; Pieper, D; Saran, A; Stern, C; Munn, Z. Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis 2023, 21, 520-532

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I have carefully reviewed your manuscript, “Analysis of factors associated with active and sedentary behaviors of children and adolescents considering Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory: a scoping review protocol.” The topic is timely and valuable, the theoretical anchoring is appropriate, and the protocol is largely aligned with contemporary guidance for scoping reviews. In my view, the manuscript merits publication after minor revisions to tighten the methodological description, strengthen alignment between theory and procedures, and refine presentation. I detail below, in a single narrative, what should be clarified or modified and how to do so concretely.

Your title is clear and faithful to the study design; however, the abstract would benefit from sharper structure and precision. At present, it signals adherence to PRISMA-ScR and the PCC framework, but it does not specify key operational choices that readers typically expect at protocol stage (time window for searches, language limitations, whether gray literature will be considered, whether critical appraisal is planned, and how data will be charted and synthesized). I recommend expanding the abstract to include: (i) all planned information sources and exact coverage period; (ii) whether you will include theses, reports, and conference proceedings; (iii) a succinct description of your data-charting variables; and (iv) an explicit statement that no quantitative meta-analysis is planned (if that is the case). These additions will make the abstract self-contained and reproducible for the protocol genre.

The introduction offers an accessible overview of Bronfenbrenner’s theoretical evolution and correctly motivates the need to map multilevel correlates of active/sedentary behaviors in youth. To elevate the scholarly contribution, I suggest closing the introduction with a concise conceptual logic model that translates PPCT elements into reviewable constructs. For instance, identify a priori which Process (e.g., parent–child co-activity, teacher feedback, peer norms), Person (e.g., sex, age, motor competence, neurodiversity), Context (e.g., neighborhood safety, school PE policy, sports club access), and Time (e.g., developmental stage, post-COVID period) variables you expect to encounter, along with illustrative indicators. Embedding this one-paragraph logic model will (a) justify inclusion/exclusion choices, (b) guide data-charting consistency, and (c) provide a backbone for the narrative synthesis.

The objectives are appropriate for a scoping review, but the research question, as currently phrased, remains broad. Please consider decomposing it into two or three sub-questions that mirror PPCT: for example, Q1 mapping proximal processes associated with active/sedentary behavior; Q2 mapping person-level characteristics that moderate these associations; and Q3 mapping contextual/time influences and their interactions. This sharpening will help you predefine your analytical lenses and avoid a purely descriptive catalogue.

Eligibility criteria are generally sound under PCC; nonetheless, several decision points require explicit pre-specification to ensure replicability and to minimize post-hoc drift. I recommend that you (i) state the age bounds (5–17 years) as inclusion thresholds and clarify how mixed-age samples will be handled; (ii) define study designs included (cross-sectional, longitudinal, qualitative, mixed-methods, interventions) and excluded (editorials, narrative reviews, commentaries), already implied but not crisply enumerated; (iii) declare language restrictions (if any) and whether you will attempt machine translation; (iv) predefine geographic or setting limits (none, as implied); and (v) specify whether device-based (accelerometry) and self-report measures of physical activity/sedentary behavior will both be eligible, with a plan to distinguish them in charting. These clarifications add transparency at the protocol stage.

The information sources and search strategy are appropriate and comprehensive for the topic (PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, ERIC, SciELO). To strengthen reproducibility, I encourage you to append the full, database-specific strategies (including field tags, truncations, adjacency operators, and filters) as a supplementary file and to declare the date of the initial search and the update policy (e.g., re-run before data extraction is finalized). Given the ecological emphasis, you should also rationalize whether gray literature (e.g., WHO/UNESCO/UNICEF reports, national PE policies) will be searched; if you elect to exclude gray literature, please justify the decision explicitly and discuss its implications for mapping policy-level contexts.

Study selection procedures are described, including the use of dual independent screening and Rayyan for deduplication. Two concrete improvements will enhance methodological rigor: (i) pre-register how you will calibrate reviewers prior to screening (e.g., pilot 50 records; accept κ≥0.70 before proceeding); and (ii) specify how discrepancies will be resolved (third reviewer arbitration vs. consensus meetings, with escalation criteria). In addition, please plan to report inter-rater agreement statistics (Cohen’s kappa) for both title/abstract and full-text phases in the final review.

Your data-charting plan is described at a high level (study characteristics, participant characteristics, and main results). For a PPCT-anchored review, I recommend expanding the charting template to explicitly capture: (a) operational definitions of active/sedentary behaviors (device cut-points, questionnaire type, domain-specific vs. total time); (b) PPCT mapping fields—what each study treats as “process,” “person,” “context,” and “time,” and at which ecological levels (micro/meso/exo/macro/chrono); (c) measurement quality flags (validated instrument yes/no; reliability indices when reported); (d) equity-relevant descriptors (SES proxies, migration status, disability, rurality); and (e) intervention features (if applicable) using a standardized taxonomy (e.g., TIDieR items for behavior change techniques). Preprinting your full charting form will materially improve transparency and reproducibility.

On critical appraisal: scoping reviews are not required to appraise risk of bias, yet many recent protocols include at least a light-touch appraisal to inform interpretation. I suggest you pre-decide between (i) no formal appraisal (then state this clearly and justify it) or (ii) adopting simple, design-specific tools (e.g., AXIS for cross-sectional studies; CASP for qualitative) to flag limitations without excluding studies. Even if you choose (i), consider coding key methodological vulnerabilities (e.g., convenience sampling, non-validated instruments, unreported confounder control) so that your synthesis can stratify findings by credibility.

Your synthesis plan currently promises a descriptive mapping “based on Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Theory and/or PPCT.” To avoid an inventory that is theoretical in name only, I encourage you to commit to a two-stage synthesis: first, a domain map (what factors are studied at each PPCT level, with counts and study designs), and second, a narrative integration that highlights cross-level interactions (e.g., how neighborhood walkability moderates the association between family routines and device-measured MVPA; how school PE policy interacts with age/sex). You need not pool effects, but you should a priori plan to stratify findings by (i) device vs. self-report measurement; (ii) child vs. adolescent subgroups; and (iii) region/income setting. This will give the synthesis structure and interpretive value beyond cataloguing.

The protocol appropriately references PRISMA-ScR and registration; please ensure that the OSF registration is live and includes the finalized protocol, not just a placeholder. In reporting, plan to include the PRISMA-ScR flow diagram and provide machine-readable supplementary files of screened records and reasons for exclusion at full text to enhance transparency. 

Stylistically, the manuscript is generally fluent, but there are occasional lapses that would benefit from careful copy-editing: standardize capitalization (e.g., Bioecological Theory vs. bioecological theory), ensure uniform use of UK/US English conventions, and correct minor typographical issues. The Methods section should avoid future/conditional tense drift; use consistent protocol tense (“we will…”). The “Funding,” “Ethics,” and “Conflicts of Interest” statements are appropriate for a protocol; please also add a brief data management and availability statement specific to the review dataset (extraction files, codebooks).

Regarding the bibliography, the coverage of Bronfenbrenner’s own work and PPCT exegesis is solid, but the list would benefit from adding recent, empirically grounded exemplars that concretely illustrate the PPCT approach as applied to youth movement behaviors. I strongly recommend that you cite two recent open-access studies that, while focusing on adjacent domains, exemplify the multilevel and developmental reasoning you advocate. One demonstrates how structured, varied physical-activity contexts (multisport, play-based practice) are associated with better motor coordination outcomes in children using standardized tools (KTK), offering a clear illustration of process–context synergies that your map intends to catalogue. Incorporating such evidence will enrich your Background and help readers visualize the kinds of proximal processes and settings your review will chart. 

A second, clinically oriented study examines barriers to physical activity among children with neurological conditions and highlights how psychological distress and health status shape movement behavior—this is directly relevant to your person dimension and underscores why heterogeneity in health conditions must be represented in the charting form.

Two final, integrative suggestions will improve the manuscript’s practical impact and coherence. First, because many submissions and readers in this field intersect with nutrition and lifestyle journals, I encourage you to add a short subsection in the introduction or discussion explicitly addressing nutrition–activity clustering in youth (e.g., breakfast regularity, dietary quality, sugar-sweetened beverage intake) and how these macro- and meso-context factors may co-vary with PA/SB within a PPCT perspective. This bridge will make your work immediately pertinent to audiences focused on dietary determinants of movement behaviors and facilitate cross-disciplinary uptake. Second, as you refine the protocol, consider integrating insights from the additional manuscript you mentioned (the one you asked us to consider alongside the present protocol) insofar as it helps you articulate shared constructs (for example, common measurement challenges across lifestyle domains, or the need to harmonize behavioral definitions and cut-points). Framing these links explicitly will enhance conceptual clarity and make the protocol more directly informative for related empirical manuscripts.

In sum, your protocol is well conceived and addresses a meaningful gap. With the minor revisions outlined—chiefly, a more explicit operationalization of PPCT within the charting/synthesis plan, fuller reporting of search and selection procedures, and small presentational refinements—the manuscript will be methodologically transparent and theoretically grounded. I look forward to the final version.

Author Response

Reviewer 4

 

Dear Authors,

 

I have carefully reviewed your manuscript, “Analysis of factors associated with active and sedentary behaviors of children and adolescents considering Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory: a scoping review protocol.” The topic is timely and valuable, the theoretical anchoring is appropriate, and the protocol is largely aligned with contemporary guidance for scoping reviews. In my view, the manuscript merits publication after minor revisions to tighten the methodological description, strengthen alignment between theory and procedures, and refine presentation. I detail below, in a single narrative, what should be clarified or modified and how to do so concretely.

R: Thanks.

 

Your title is clear and faithful to the study design; however, the abstract would benefit from sharper structure and precision. At present, it signals adherence to PRISMA-ScR and the PCC framework, but it does not specify key operational choices that readers typically expect at protocol stage (time window for searches, language limitations, whether gray literature will be considered, whether critical appraisal is planned, and how data will be charted and synthesized). I recommend expanding the abstract to include: (i) all planned information sources and exact coverage period; (ii) whether you will include theses, reports, and conference proceedings; (iii) a succinct description of your data-charting variables; and (iv) an explicit statement that no quantitative meta-analysis is planned (if that is the case). These additions will make the abstract self-contained and reproducible for the protocol genre.

R: Done.

 

The introduction offers an accessible overview of Bronfenbrenner’s theoretical evolution and correctly motivates the need to map multilevel correlates of active/sedentary behaviors in youth. To elevate the scholarly contribution, I suggest closing the introduction with a concise conceptual logic model that translates PPCT elements into reviewable constructs. For instance, identify a priori which Process (e.g., parent–child co-activity, teacher feedback, peer norms), Person (e.g., sex, age, motor competence, neurodiversity), Context (e.g., neighborhood safety, school PE policy, sports club access), and Time (e.g., developmental stage, post-COVID period) variables you expect to encounter, along with illustrative indicators. Embedding this one-paragraph logic model will (a) justify inclusion/exclusion choices, (b) guide data-charting consistency, and (c) provide a backbone for the narrative synthesis.

R: This information is in the Introduction.

“Thus, the main characteristic of this theory is the dynamic interactions between its four pillars: the process, the person, the context, and the time, with the emphasis centred on proximal processes (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998, 2007). The model is conceptualised from a bioecological perspective, in which the individual and context relate and define each other in a reciprocal way (Bronfenbrenner, 2005). The development of the individual in the theoretical-methodological model refers to the continuity and change in the biopsychological characteristics of human beings, both individually and in groups, throughout the person's life course and through generations and historical time (Bronfenbrenner, 1999). Human development occurs through gradually more complex processes of reciprocal interaction between an active subject and the people, objects, and symbols of their immediate environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1995). This process of reciprocity is called the proximal process, which, to have effects on development, must occur regularly over an extended period of time (Nobre, Valentini & Rusidill, 2020). Therefore, the concept of development for Bronfenbrenner refers to the result of a joint function between a proximal process, the characteristics of the developing person, the immediate context in which he or she lives, and the amount and frequency of time in which the developing person has been exposed to a specific proximal process and the environment (Figure 1), this set being called the PPCT (Process-Person-Context-Time) model of development (Bhering & Sarkis, 2009).”

In addition:

1. Figure 1 has been included in the text of Introduction for a better understanding of the model;
2. The following text was included in the Methods, in Review Question section.

“While the main objective of the proposed work is to map the factors associated with PA and SB, the review will be guided by specific analytical sub-questions, which mirror the PPCT model:

 

1. What proximal Processes (e.g., parent-child co-activity, teacher feedback) have been identified in the literature as associated with the active and sedentary behaviors of children and adolescents?
2. What Person characteristics (e.g., age, sex, gender, motor competence) have been identified as moderating these associations?
3. What Contextual (e.g., neighbourhood safety, school policies) and Time (e.g., developmental stage) influences have been mapped?
4. To what extent has the literature applied the complete, interactive PPCT model, versus studies that focus primarily on the ecological levels (Context)?”

 

 

The objectives are appropriate for a scoping review, but the research question, as currently phrased, remains broad. Please consider decomposing it into two or three sub-questions that mirror PPCT: for example, Q1 mapping proximal processes associated with active/sedentary behavior; Q2 mapping person-level characteristics that moderate these associations; and Q3 mapping contextual/time influences and their interactions. This sharpening will help you predefine your analytical lenses and avoid a purely descriptive catalogue.

R: Done. The following text was included in the Review Question.

“While the main objective of the proposed work is to map the factors associated with PA and SB, the review will be guided by specific analytical sub-questions, which mirror the PPCT model:

 

1. What proximal Processes (e.g., parent-child co-activity, teacher feedback) have been identified in the literature as associated with the active and sedentary behaviors of children and adolescents?
2. What Person characteristics (e.g., age, sex, gender, motor competence) have been identified as moderating these associations?
3. What Contextual (e.g., neighbourhood safety, school policies) and Time (e.g., developmental stage) influences have been mapped?
4. To what extent has the literature applied the complete, interactive PPCT model, versus studies that focus primarily on the ecological levels (Context)?”

 

Eligibility criteria are generally sound under PCC; nonetheless, several decision points require explicit pre-specification to ensure replicability and to minimize post-hoc drift. I recommend that you (i) state the age bounds (5–17 years) as inclusion thresholds and clarify how mixed-age samples will be handled; (ii) define study designs included (cross-sectional, longitudinal, qualitative, mixed-methods, interventions) and excluded (editorials, narrative reviews, commentaries), already implied but not crisply enumerated; (iii) declare language restrictions (if any) and whether you will attempt machine translation; (iv) predefine geographic or setting limits (none, as implied); and (v) specify whether device-based (accelerometry) and self-report measures of physical activity/sedentary behavior will both be eligible, with a plan to distinguish them in charting. These clarifications add transparency at the protocol stage.

R: Done. The following text was included in the Eligibility criteria.

“Eligible studies will be required to be original studies, published in peer-reviewed journals. For mixed-age samples, studies will be included only if data for the 5–17 age range can be extracted separately, or if the sample's mean/median age falls within this specified range. Eligible study designs include observational studies, such as cross-sectional, longitudinal, cohort, and intervention studies, provided they report base-line associated factors. Studies will be included regardless of geographical setting. Both objective measures of PA/SB, such as accelerometry, and subjective measures, such as questionnaires, will be eligible, and will be distinguished during data charting. Finally, only articles published in English, Spanish, or Portuguese will be included.

The exclusion criteria are as follows: reviews of all types, editorials, books, book chapters, guidelines, expert opinion articles, dissertations, theses, and conference abstracts. Additionally, studies that do not use Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory as a guide to understand PA or SB will not fall within the scope of this review.”

 

The information sources and search strategy are appropriate and comprehensive for the topic (PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, ERIC, SciELO). To strengthen reproducibility, I encourage you to append the full, database-specific strategies (including field tags, truncations, adjacency operators, and filters) as a supplementary file and to declare the date of the initial search and the update policy (e.g., re-run before data extraction is finalized). Given the ecological emphasis, you should also rationalize whether gray literature (e.g., WHO/UNESCO/UNICEF reports, national PE policies) will be searched; if you elect to exclude gray literature, please justify the decision explicitly and discuss its implications for mapping policy-level contexts.

R: Done.

 

Study selection procedures are described, including the use of dual independent screening and Rayyan for deduplication. Two concrete improvements will enhance methodological rigor: (i) pre-register how you will calibrate reviewers prior to screening (e.g., pilot 50 records; accept κ≥0.70 before proceeding); and (ii) specify how discrepancies will be resolved (third reviewer arbitration vs. consensus meetings, with escalation criteria). In addition, please plan to report inter-rater agreement statistics (Cohen’s kappa) for both title/abstract and full-text phases in the final review.

R: Done.

 

Your data-charting plan is described at a high level (study characteristics, participant characteristics, and main results). For a PPCT-anchored review, I recommend expanding the charting template to explicitly capture: (a) operational definitions of active/sedentary behaviors (device cut-points, questionnaire type, domain-specific vs. total time); (b) PPCT mapping fields—what each study treats as “process,” “person,” “context,” and “time,” and at which ecological levels (micro/meso/exo/macro/chrono); (c) measurement quality flags (validated instrument yes/no; reliability indices when reported); (d) equity-relevant descriptors (SES proxies, migration status, disability, rurality); and (e) intervention features (if applicable) using a standardized taxonomy (e.g., TIDieR items for behavior change techniques). Preprinting your full charting form will materially improve transparency and reproducibility.

R: Done.

 

On critical appraisal: scoping reviews are not required to appraise risk of bias, yet many recent protocols include at least a light-touch appraisal to inform interpretation. I suggest you pre-decide between (i) no formal appraisal (then state this clearly and justify it) or (ii) adopting simple, design-specific tools (e.g., AXIS for cross-sectional studies; CASP for qualitative) to flag limitations without excluding studies. Even if you choose (i), consider coding key methodological vulnerabilities (e.g., convenience sampling, non-validated instruments, unreported confounder control) so that your synthesis can stratify findings by credibility.

R: This information is in the Data synthesis.

“A narrative synthesis of the extracted data will be conducted, structured around Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory and the PPCT model. The synthesis will be performed in two main stages.

In the first stage, a descriptive and quantitative mapping of the included studies will be conducted. This will involve summarizing key characteristics (e.g., country in which the study was carried out, follow-up period, study design, and instruments used to evaluate the variables) and tabulating the frequency of factors associated with active and/or sedentary behaviors. These factors will be categorised according to the PPCT model (Process, Person, Context, Time) and its corresponding ecological levels (Micro, Meso, Exo, Macro, Chrono).

In the second stage, a narrative integration of the findings will be developed. This synthesis will move beyond a simple description to identify patterns, convergences, and gaps in the literature. A specific focus will be placed on synthesizing evidence regarding the interactions reported between different ecological levels (e.g., how contextual factors moderate proximal processes). To provide a more granular analysis, where data permits, the synthesis will be stratified by key study characteristics, such as (i) age group (children vs. adolescents), (ii) measurement type (objective/device-based vs. subjective/self-report), and (iii) geographic region or income setting.

Given that this study is a scoping review with general objectives, it was decided not to conduct a risk of bias assessment of the eligible studies (Peters et al., 2015; Pollock et al., 2023). It is recommended that subsequent specific systematic reviews be conducted based on the results of this scoping review.”

 

Peters, M.D; Godfrey, C.M; Khalil, H; McInerney, P; Parker, D; Soares, C.B. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int. J. Evid.-Based Healthc. 2015, 13, 141–146.

Pollock, D; Peters, MDJ; Khalil, H; McInerney, P; Alexander, L; Tricco, A; Evans, C; de Moraes, EB; Godfrey, C; Pieper, D; Saran, A; Stern, C; Munn, Z. Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis 2023, 21, 520-532

 

Your synthesis plan currently promises a descriptive mapping “based on Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Theory and/or PPCT.” To avoid an inventory that is theoretical in name only, I encourage you to commit to a two-stage synthesis: first, a domain map (what factors are studied at each PPCT level, with counts and study designs), and second, a narrative integration that highlights cross-level interactions (e.g., how neighborhood walkability moderates the association between family routines and device-measured MVPA; how school PE policy interacts with age/sex). You need not pool effects, but you should a priori plan to stratify findings by (i) device vs. self-report measurement; (ii) child vs. adolescent subgroups; and (iii) region/income setting. This will give the synthesis structure and interpretive value beyond cataloguing.

R: Done.

 

The protocol appropriately references PRISMA-ScR and registration; please ensure that the OSF registration is live and includes the finalized protocol, not just a placeholder. In reporting, plan to include the PRISMA-ScR flow diagram and provide machine-readable supplementary files of screened records and reasons for exclusion at full text to enhance transparency.

R: ok.

 

Stylistically, the manuscript is generally fluent, but there are occasional lapses that would benefit from careful copy-editing: standardize capitalization (e.g., Bioecological Theory vs. bioecological theory), ensure uniform use of UK/US English conventions, and correct minor typographical issues. The Methods section should avoid future/conditional tense drift; use consistent protocol tense (“we will…”). The “Funding,” “Ethics,” and “Conflicts of Interest” statements are appropriate for a protocol; please also add a brief data management and availability statement specific to the review dataset (extraction files, codebooks).

R: Done.

 

Regarding the bibliography, the coverage of Bronfenbrenner’s own work and PPCT exegesis is solid, but the list would benefit from adding recent, empirically grounded exemplars that concretely illustrate the PPCT approach as applied to youth movement behaviors. I strongly recommend that you cite two recent open-access studies that, while focusing on adjacent domains, exemplify the multilevel and developmental reasoning you advocate. One demonstrates how structured, varied physical-activity contexts (multisport, play-based practice) are associated with better motor coordination outcomes in children using standardized tools (KTK), offering a clear illustration of process–context synergies that your map intends to catalogue. Incorporating such evidence will enrich your Background and help readers visualize the kinds of proximal processes and settings your review will chart.

R: Two references on the suggested topic were included in the Introduction.

A second, clinically oriented study examines barriers to physical activity among children with neurological conditions and highlights how psychological distress and health status shape movement behavior—this is directly relevant to your person dimension and underscores why heterogeneity in health conditions must be represented in the charting form.

R: A reference on the suggested topic was included in the Introduction.

Two final, integrative suggestions will improve the manuscript’s practical impact and coherence. First, because many submissions and readers in this field intersect with nutrition and lifestyle journals, I encourage you to add a short subsection in the introduction or discussion explicitly addressing nutrition–activity clustering in youth (e.g., breakfast regularity, dietary quality, sugar-sweetened beverage intake) and how these macro- and meso-context factors may co-vary with PA/SB within a PPCT perspective. This bridge will make your work immediately pertinent to audiences focused on dietary determinants of movement behaviors and facilitate cross-disciplinary uptake. Second, as you refine the protocol, consider integrating insights from the additional manuscript you mentioned (the one you asked us to consider alongside the present protocol) insofar as it helps you articulate shared constructs (for example, common measurement challenges across lifestyle domains, or the need to harmonize behavioral definitions and cut-points). Framing these links explicitly will enhance conceptual clarity and make the protocol more directly informative for related empirical manuscripts.

R: We appreciate the suggestion, but we chose not to give special attention to any clinical condition that could interfere with the proximal processes of physical activity and sedentary behavior in the Introduction of the text.

 

In sum, your protocol is well conceived and addresses a meaningful gap. With the minor revisions outlined—chiefly, a more explicit operationalization of PPCT within the charting/synthesis plan, fuller reporting of search and selection procedures, and small presentational refinements—the manuscript will be methodologically transparent and theoretically grounded. I look forward to the final version.

R: Thanks.

 

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

From a formal standpoint, the article is well structured in terms of methodology. The review follows the PRISMA recommendations (pages 145–150, Appendix A) and also appears to have its protocol registered in Open Science, which ensures, to some extent, both methodological transparency and the possibility of reproducing the study.

 

Likewise, from a formal perspective, the paper is well organized and properly written.

 

From the perspective of scientific relevance, although the topic has been widely investigated, it remains highly relevant in the field of public health and health education, especially considering the current issues of sedentary behavior and obesity in the population analyzed.

 

I would like to make a few remarks that, in my opinion, could further improve the manuscript:

 

1.- I recommend that the authors include a table or figure summarizing the evolution of Bronfenbrenner’s theory, as this would facilitate a clearer understanding of the model.

 

2.- In my opinion, although scoping reviews do not require a formal quality assessment of the included studies, it would be advisable to clarify how the methodological limitations of the included studies will be addressed or discussed in the synthesis.

 

3.- It would also be useful to expand briefly on how the review findings could inform school-based interventions or community-level policy actions (with more concrete references to public policies), beyond the general dissemination statements (lines 225–235).

 

In conclusion, this is a well-designed and clearly articulated scoping review protocol. The manuscript demonstrates methodological rigor and theoretical depth. Once the minor observations mentioned above are addressed, I recommend it favorably for publication.

Author Response

Reviewer 5

 

From a formal standpoint, the article is well structured in terms of methodology. The review follows the PRISMA recommendations (pages 145–150, Appendix A) and also appears to have its protocol registered in Open Science, which ensures, to some extent, both methodological transparency and the possibility of reproducing the study.

R: Thanks.

 

Likewise, from a formal perspective, the paper is well organized and properly written.

R: Thanks.

 

From the perspective of scientific relevance, although the topic has been widely investigated, it remains highly relevant in the field of public health and health education, especially considering the current issues of sedentary behavior and obesity in the population analyzed.

R: Thanks.

 

I would like to make a few remarks that, in my opinion, could further improve the manuscript:

 

1.- I recommend that the authors include a table or figure summarizing the evolution of Bronfenbrenner’s theory, as this would facilitate a clearer understanding of the model.

R: Done. We chose to include in Introduction a figure from the model that represents the current stage (Figure 1).

 

2.- In my opinion, although scoping reviews do not require a formal quality assessment of the included studies, it would be advisable to clarify how the methodological limitations of the included studies will be addressed or discussed in the synthesis.

R: This information is in the Data synthesis.

“A narrative synthesis of the extracted data will be conducted, structured around Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory and the PPCT model. The synthesis will be performed in two main stages.

In the first stage, a descriptive and quantitative mapping of the included studies will be conducted. This will involve summarizing key characteristics (e.g., country in which the study was carried out, follow-up period, study design, and instruments used to evaluate the variables) and tabulating the frequency of factors associated with active and/or sedentary behaviors. These factors will be categorised according to the PPCT model (Process, Person, Context, Time) and its corresponding ecological levels (Micro, Meso, Exo, Macro, Chrono).

In the second stage, a narrative integration of the findings will be developed. This synthesis will move beyond a simple description to identify patterns, convergences, and gaps in the literature. A specific focus will be placed on synthesizing evidence regarding the interactions reported between different ecological levels (e.g., how contextual factors moderate proximal processes). To provide a more granular analysis, where data permits, the synthesis will be stratified by key study characteristics, such as (i) age group (children vs. adolescents), (ii) measurement type (objective/device-based vs. subjective/self-report), and (iii) geographic region or income setting.

Given that this study is a scoping review with general objectives, it was decided not to conduct a risk of bias assessment of the eligible studies (Peters et al., 2015; Pollock et al., 2023). It is recommended that subsequent specific systematic reviews be conducted based on the results of this scoping review.”

 

Peters, M.D; Godfrey, C.M; Khalil, H; McInerney, P; Parker, D; Soares, C.B. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int. J. Evid.-Based Healthc. 2015, 13, 141–146.

Pollock, D; Peters, MDJ; Khalil, H; McInerney, P; Alexander, L; Tricco, A; Evans, C; de Moraes, EB; Godfrey, C; Pieper, D; Saran, A; Stern, C; Munn, Z. Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis 2023, 21, 520-532

 

3.- It would also be useful to expand briefly on how the review findings could inform school-based interventions or community-level policy actions (with more concrete references to public policies), beyond the general dissemination statements (lines 225–235).

R: This information is in the Dissemination.

“The proposed scoping review is expected to provide a comprehensive map of how Bronfenbrenner's bioecological theory has been applied to active and sedentary behaviors in children and adolescents. It is anticipated that the findings will highlight which components of the theory (e.g., "bioecology" vs. "ecology") and which PPCT elements (e.g., Process, Person, Context, Time) have been most frequently, or infrequently, investigated. For instance, the study expects to identify whether the literature is overly focused on specific levels (e.g., the Context) while neglecting the full, interactive PPCT model. The review also aims to map the methodological tools used in this field, thereby identifying gaps and providing a clear framework for future research on the complex, multi-level determinants of youth PA and SB in different contexts that promote physical activity, such as at school, in the community, and in sports initiation programs.”

 

In conclusion, this is a well-designed and clearly articulated scoping review protocol. The manuscript demonstrates methodological rigor and theoretical depth. Once the minor observations mentioned above are addressed, I recommend it favorably for publication.

R: Thanks.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revision of manuscript has not addressed key points that could increase the merit of the manuscript. For instance, the authors have not explained or justified:

a) why a protocol study of a scoping review needs to be published.

b) what are the key variables of the tested model; the variables presented in the method section has not been sufficiently discussed in the introduction and relevant literature has not been presented.

c) what is the rationale for the scoping review

d) what variables will be searched for; several of the variables/key words mentioned are not relevant to the model and the adoption of a 'broader' investigation does not fit to the scope of a scoping review that is typically used to investigate a narrow, with limited studies, field.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the language can be improved.

Author Response

Responses to the reviewers in blue

 

Reviewer 3 (Round 2)

 

The revision of manuscript has not addressed key points that could increase the merit of the manuscript. For instance, the authors have not explained or justified:

 

1. a) why a protocol study of a scoping review needs to be published.

R: Thank you for this important question.

According to Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) recommendations, as with all well-conducted systematic reviews, an a priori protocol must be developed before undertaking the scoping review. Publishing the scoping review protocol is important, as it pre-defines the objectives, methods, and reporting of the review and allows for transparency of the process. The protocol should detail the criteria that the reviewers intend to use to include and exclude sources of evidence and to identify what data is relevant, and how the data will be extracted and presented. The protocol provides the plan for the scoping review and is important in limiting the occurrence of reporting bias. Any deviations of the scoping review from the protocol should be clearly highlighted and explained in the scoping review (Aromataris et al., 2024).

 

Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Porritt K, Pilla B, Jordan Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2024.

Available from: https://synthesismanual.jbi.global. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-24-01

 

1. b) what are the key variables of the tested model; the variables presented in the method section has not been sufficiently discussed in the introduction and relevant literature has not been presented.

R: This question was answered together with item d of this report, given the proximity of the topic addressed in the questions.

 

1. c) what is the rationale for the scoping review

R: Thank you for this important consideration.

The rationale for the study is highlighted in blue in the Introduction section and mentioned below:

“When applying this theory, the factors associated with PA and SB can be better understood. Person characteristics, including individual attributes and biological factors, as well as proximal processes, defined by reciprocal interactions in the immediate environment, are fundamental variables. However, preliminary evidence from the literature suggests that, to date, studies applying this theory have disproportionately focused on the context component [20,21]. Variables within the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem are frequently cited as the primary determinants associated with PA and SB. Conversely, the roles of the process itself, the interactions and the time, specifically the chronosystem, in addition to the complete, interactive PPCT model, appear to be less explored. Thus, a key goal of this scoping review is to map precisely which variables have been most associated with PA and SB, and to verify how and how often the four components of the PPCT model have been fully applied in the literature.

Although some studies stand out by taking into account different determinants of PA and SB [22-24], analysis of the literature demonstrates that there is still no clarifying description of the multiple factors that deter-mine the strong variability in children and adolescents, particularly when related to Bronfenbrenner's theory of human development, considering its three phases [11].”

 

1. d) what variables will be searched for; several of the variables/key words mentioned are not relevant to the model and the adoption of a 'broader' investigation does not fit to the scope of a scoping review that is typically used to investigate a narrow, with limited studies, field.

R: Thank you for this important consideration.

According to Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) recommendations, different forms of evidence and different review objectives and questions have led to the development of new approaches that are designed to more effectively and rigorously synthesize the evidence. Scoping reviews, which have also been called “mapping reviews” or “scoping studies” are one type of review. A scoping review will have a broader “scope” with correspondingly less restrictive inclusion criteria (Aromataris et al., 2024).

The aim of the proposed study is to verify, explore, and map the existing literature concerning the utilization and application of Bronfenbrenner's theory of human development in physical activity (PA) and sedentary behavior (SB) research from health, educational, and sports science areas. It is anticipated that the results of the scoping review will (1) identify how and how often the four components of the PPCT model have been isolated and fully applied in the literature, and (2) confirm which variables have been most commonly associated with PA and SB. For this reason, the present scoping review protocol addressed aspects related to the practice of physical activity (PA) and sedentary behavior (SB) in children and adolescents in the introductory text (which are the variables of interest in the study), presented a theoretical detailing of Bronfenbrenner's model of human development, but did not propose to delve into comments about the possible variables correlated to PA and SB. In this direction, and considering the possibility of including texts published in the areas of health, education, and sports science, a broad search strategy was chosen, using the PCC strategy, commonly recommended for this type of review study.

 

 

Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Porritt K, Pilla B, Jordan Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2024.

Available from: https://synthesismanual.jbi.global. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-24-01