Synthesising physical literacy research for ‘blank spots’: A Systematic review of reviews

ABSTRACT

The holistic concept of physical literacy (PL) has gained considerable attention worldwide and integrates different determinants (e.g., physical, affective, and cognitive) of physical activity. The purpose of this systematic review (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022312764) was to broadly synthesise PL research and determine “blank spots”. We performed standardized searches for PL reviews in 23 databases. Inclusion criteria were English language, any review with a systematized search, publication by June 2023 and PL relevance in an article’s main body. The content and insights of the identified reviews were assigned to six literature-driven “problem fields”: (i) theory/concept, (ii) measurement/levels/trends, (iii) determinants, (iv) outcomes, (v) interventions, and (vi) policy. We employed nine items for assessing the methodological quality of the reviews (including six items from AMSTAR-2). The screening resulted in an inclusion of 41 PL reviews of different methodology. Existing reviews most frequently analysed aspects of measurement (n = 20) as well as theory/definition (n = 19), followed by interventions (n = 17). In contrast, determinants (n = 6), outcomes (n = 5) and policy aspects (n = 4) were discussed less often. Accordingly, the major “blank spots” are: empirical studies on determinants and outcomes; PL levels and trends; pivotal moderators of interventions; and policy aspects. We recommend the scientific community to address these to move the field forward.

KEYWORDS:

• Active lifestyle
• competence
• education
• health
• physical activity
• sport

Abbreviations

AMSTAR: A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews; IPLA : International Physical Literacy Association; PA : Physical Activity; PL : Physical Literacy; PRISMA : Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; PROSPERO : International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; WHO : World Health Organization.

Disclosure statement

Although the research team intends to soberly describe the situation of the PL literature, we want to make transparent our position that we take a liberal-pluralistic understanding of PL, having the conviction that PL can be conceptualised differently in line with basic cultural assumptions/traditions and professional backgrounds. The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

Author contributions

JC: conceptualisation, methodology, data extraction and analysis, investigation, data curation, visualization, supervision, project administration, writing – original draft; JJ: conceptualisation, data extraction and analysis, writing – review and editing; MK, ALOM, and AS: literature searches and screenings, writing – review and editing; PB: conceptualisation, supervision, writing – review and editing; PE: conceptualisation, supervision, data extraction, writing – review and editing.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2023.2259209

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

The research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.