Physical activity is essential for children’s healthy development, yet COVID-19 physical distancing restrictions such as school closures and staying at home, playground closures, and the cancelling of organised community sport have dramatically altered children’s opportunities to be physically active. This study describes changes in levels of physical activity and screen time from February 2020 (i.e., before COVID-19 restrictions were introduced in Western Australia) to May 2020 (i.e., when COVID-19 restrictions were in place). Parents of children aged 5 to 9 years from Western Australia were eligible to participate and recruited through convenience sampling. An online survey instrument that included validated measures of their children’s physical activity (unstructured, organized, home-based, indoor/outdoor active play, dog play/walking), sociodemographic, and other potential confounders was administered to parents. Paired t-tests and mixed ANOVA models assessed changes in physical activity outcomes. The analytic sample comprised parents of 157 children who were 6.9 years of age (SD = 1.7) on average. Overall, weekly minutes of total physical activity (PA) did not change from before to during COVID-19. However, frequency and duration (total and home-based) of unstructured physical activity significantly increased. Outdoor play in the yard or street around the house, outdoor play in the park or playground or outdoor recreation area, and active indoor play at home all significantly increased. Frequency and total duration of organised physical activity significantly declined during COVID-19 distancing. During Western Australian COVID-19 restrictions, there was an increase in young children’s unstructured physical activity and outdoor play and a decrease in organised physical activity. It remains to be seen whether children’s increased physical activity has been sustained with the easing of physical distancing restrictions.

Background: The aim of this study was to gain consensus on an evidence informed physical activity policy template for early childhood education and care (ECEC) and determine best-practice dissemination and implementation strategies using the Delphi process.Methods: Three-round modified Delphi methodology. During round one an expert working group developed an evidence informed ECEC specific physical activity policy template. Rounds two and three involved national online surveys to seek insight from a group of experts on the draft physical activity policy template.Results: Ninety per cent of experts reported ECEC services are fully responsible for having a physical activity policy. There was consensus on the components of the policy and key physical activity and sedentary behaviour statements and recommendations. The most effective methods for disseminating a physical activity policy to ECEC providers included online (websites, social and electronic media), ECEC targeted launch events, direct mail outs and via professional associations. Twenty five key strategies related to management, supervisors and educators; the ECEC physical environment; communicating with families; and accreditation, monitoring and review, were identified as necessary for the successful implementation of physical activity policy in ECEC. Experts reached consensus on nine of these strategies indicating they were both easy to implement and likely to have a high level of influence. Key barriers and enablers to implementing ECEC-specific physical activity were also identified.Conclusions: This evidence informed physical activity policy template for ECEC provides recommendations on the amount of physical activity and sedentary time (including screen time) children should have whilst attending ECEC and aligns with national/international guidelines. A number of effective physical activity policy implementation strategies for ECEC were identified. An important next step is advocating for the introduction of legislative requirements for services to have and implement a physical activity policy.

Issue Addressed: This study examined how families with young children access and use different types of blue spaces and the health and development benefits, and potential negative effects.Methods: Parents(n = 25) of young children across four coastal communities in Western Australia were recruited via purposive sampling to participate in interviews. A generic qualitative study design grounded in the pragmatism paradigm was utilised.Results: Beaches were the most frequently used blue space for families all year around, however families did not necessarily attend their closest beach. This appears due to certain beach features making them more or less attractive for use regardless of the distance from home. Parents perceived blue spaces as health promoting due to the increased physical activity children did in and around these spaces. They also reported blue spaces could be positive for child development, contributing to the development of identity. Blue spaces were also perceived to promote children's environmental awareness and environmentally friendly behaviours. However, blue spaces could also be potentially risky environments for families with young children.Conclusions: The findings highlight blue spaces are an important setting for supporting children's health, development and environmental consciousness.So What?: It is important to protect natural outdoor environments such as blue spaces for future generations. The findings can be used by governments and policy makers to improve the quality (features and amenities) of blue spaces and positively impact how often families (including those with dogs) use blue spaces and the benefits they experience.

Purpose: We explored childcare educators’ perceived barriers and facilitators to policy implementation in order to inform the development and implementation of an early childhood education and care (ECEC) specific physical activity policy. This study was part of the Play Active (2019-2023) project which aimed to develop, implement and evaluate evidence-based physical activity policy to improve physical activity levels in children attending ECEC. Approach: Stakeholder focus groups. Setting: ECEC centers in Perth, Western Australia. Sample: Educators (n=66) from 11 ECEC centers participated in 13 focus groups (August-September 2019). Methods: Semi-structured questions explored educators’ perceptions of barriers and facilitators to implementing a new physical activity policy. A qualitative descriptive approach within a naturalistic framework informed data analysis. Focus group data were reviewed and grouped through several iterations to produce core themes. Results: Four core themes resulted from focus groups: (1) leadership; (2) educator mindset: (3) parent engagement; and (4) organisational and educator capacity. Educators needed supportive leadership and a commitment of resources for physical activity policy implementation. Educators acknowledged physical activity practices can be influenced by knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and change capacity and stressed the need for parent engagement for successful implementation. Conclusions: Educators’ voices are important for informing implementation of physical activity policy and practices leading to improvements in children’s physical activity levels.

Background: Policy interventions to increase physical activity in early childhood education and care (ECEC) services are effective in increasing physical activity among young children. However, a large proportion of ECEC services do not have nor implement a physical activity policy. Play Active is an evidence-informed physical activity policy intervention with implementation support strategies to enable ECEC services to successfully implement their policy. This study examined the effectiveness, implementation, and process outcomes of Play Active. Methods: A pragmatic cluster randomised trial in 81 ECEC services in Perth, Western Australia was conducted in 2021. Services implemented their physical activity policy over a minimum of three months. The effectiveness outcomes were changes in educator practices related to daily time provided for total physical activity and energetic play. Implementation outcomes included changes in director- and educator-reported uptake of policy practices and director-reported uptake of high impact and low effort policy practices. Process evaluation outcomes included awareness, fidelity, reach, and acceptability of the intervention and implementation strategies. Analysis involved descriptive statistics and generalised linear mixed effects models. Results: There was a significant increase in the uptake of director-reported policy practices (p = 0.034), but no change in the uptake of the subset of high impact and low effort policy practices. Intervention group educators reported high awareness of the Play Active policy recommendations (90%). Play Active acceptability was high among educators (83%) and directors (78%). Fidelity and reach were high for most implementation support strategies (> 75%). There were no significant changes in the amount of physical activity or energetic play educators provided to children or in the proportion of educators providing the policy recommended ≥ 180 min of physical activity/day or ≥ 30 min of energetic play/day for intervention compared to wait-listed comparison services. Conclusions: Play Active resulted in significantly higher uptake of physical activity practices. However, there was no change in the amount of physical activity provided to children, which may be explained by the relatively short policy implementation period. Importantly, Play Active had high awareness, fidelity, reach, and acceptability. Future research should investigate the effectiveness of Play Active over longer implementation periods and its scalability potential. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (reference number 12620001206910, registered 13/11/2020, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=378304&isReview=true).

Natural outdoor environments provide important settings for children to engage in physical activity. It is unclear if these relationships also exist in preschool aged children. We examined associations between amount and type of neighbourhood vegetation and blue space, proximity to the beach and preschooler's device‐measured movement behaviours. Accelerometer data from 1081 preschool children were processed into physical activity and sedentary behaviours using a machine learned random forest physical activity classification model specifically developed for children under five. High‐resolution aerial imagery data and Geographic Information Systems were used to identify total percentage of neighbourhood vegetation and vegetation components (grass, shrubs and trees) and presence and total percentage of blue space (ocean, riverways and lakes and swamps) for 500, 1600 and 5000 m service areas around children's residences. Distance to the closest beach, patrolled beach, and dog beach were also calculated. Amount of neighbourhood vegetation was inversely associated with boys sedentary time in the 500 m (β = −0.91 min/day, p = 0.006, 95% CI [−1.55, −0.33]) and 1600 m (β = −1.30 min/day, p = 0.001, 95% CI [−2.08, −0.53]) service area, and positively associated with walking time in the 1600 m (β = 0.12 min/day, p = 0.045, 95% CI [0.02, 0.22]) service area. The presence of local riverways was positively associated with girls walking time in the 1600 m (β = 2.34 min/day, p = 0.009, 95% CI [0.59, 4.09]), and 5000 m (β = 1.67 min/day, p = 0.019, 95% CI [0.27, 3.06]) buffer. Distance to dog beach was positively associated with boys sedentary behaviours. Presence of lake and swamps were negatively associated with boys walking, and presence of riverways was negatively associated with girls moderate‐to‐vigorous activities and games and boys running in the 5000 m service area. These findings suggest higher amounts of neighbourhood vegetation and certain types of blue space such as riverways and dog beaches could facilitate positive movement behaviours in young children. Our findings that natural outdoor environments are associated with preschool children's movement behaviours add to evidence which could contribute to policy implications for urban planning and the provision and protection of natural environments within cities. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.