Studies have found physical inactivity to be a significant health risk factor and have demonstrated how physical inactivity behaviour varies according to social background. As a result, differences according to social background must be considered when examining motives and barriers related to physical activity and sport. This scoping review examines motives and barriers related to physical activity and sport among people with different social backgrounds, including age, socioeconomic status, gender, ethnic minority background and disability status. A systematic literature search was performed in four scientific databases and yielded 2935 articles of which 58 articles met the inclusion criteria. We identified common motives for physical activity and sport as health benefits, well-being, enjoyment, social interaction, and social support; common barriers as time restrictions, fatigue and lack of energy, financial restrictions, health-related restrictions, low motivation, and shortage of facilities. We also identified several motives and barriers that were specific to or more pronounced among people with different social backgrounds. The knowledge about motives and barriers related to physical activity and sport provided in this article can inform health promotion initiatives that seek to improve public health both in general and when specifically targeting groups of people with different social backgrounds.

Background: The association between social and built environments plays a crucial role in influencing physical activity levels. However, a thorough understanding of their combined impact remains unclear. This scoping review seeks to clarify the interplay between social environments and opportunities for physical activity within different built environments, with a particular focus on the implications of socioeconomic status and urban planning on physical activity participation. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search across several databases to identify studies exploring the associations between social factors, built environment characteristics, and physical activity levels. The inclusion criteria were studies published in English between 2000 and 2022, encompassing urban, suburban, and rural contexts. Thematic analysis was employed to categorise studies based on the specific aspects of the built environment they investigated (walking infrastructure, cycling infrastructure, parks and open spaces, and sports facilities) and the social determinants they examined. Results: A total of 72 studies were included in the review, illustrating a multifaceted relationship between access to physical activity opportunities and social determinants such as socioeconomic status, community engagement, and urban design. The findings highlight the significant role of socioeconomic factors and the quality of PA infrastructure in promoting or hindering PA across communities. Effective urban planning was identified as crucial in providing expanded physical activity opportunities, notably through more pedestrian-friendly environments, comprehensive cycling infrastructure, and accessible green spaces and sports facilities. Conclusions: This review emphasises the significant impact of socioeconomic status and urban planning on access to physical activity opportunities. This underscores the necessity for urban planning policies to adopt an inclusive approach, considering the varied needs of different population groups to ensure equitable access to physical activity resources. Such strategies are crucial for public health initiatives aimed at enhancing physical activity levels across diverse community sectors, offering a potential avenue to alleviate health disparities associated with inactivity.

Studies have identified individuals’ motives and barriers as main predictors of physical-activity behaviour, while other studies found physical-activity behaviour to be related to characteristics of the built environment. However, studies that have a combined focus on motives and barriers and the built environment are less common. This scoping review aims to provide knowledge about motives and barriers related to physical activity within different types of built environments to mitigate this knowledge gap. A systematic literature search was performed in four scientific databases and yielded 2734 articles, of which 31 articles met the inclusion criteria. The review identified four types of built environments within which motives and barriers were studied, including walkability, cyclist infrastructure, neighbourhood parks and open spaces and sports facilities. Several common motives recur across all four types of built environments, especially easy accessibility and good facility conditions. Conversely, poor accessibility and inadequate facility conditions are common barriers. Our review also showed how some motives and barriers seem to be more context-specific because they were only identified within a few types of built environments. This knowledge may help target future health-promotion initiatives in relation to urban planning and the importance of the environment on physical activity.

In the first year of life, the child’s caregivers, including parents and daycare staff, play an essential role, as they are responsible for implementing daily activities to promote the motor development of young children. However, what does the research show about interventions to promote the motor development of 0–36-month-olds carried out by the child’s caregivers, and what are the caregivers’ experiences and attitudes hereof? This scoping review aims to provide an overview of the published studies to derive an overall interpretation. A systematic search was conducted in five scientific databases, resulting in 10,219 articles, of which 9 met the inclusion criteria. The results indicate that providing early intervention to 0–36-month-old children, in which the caregivers carry out the activities, promotes the young child’s motor development. Furthermore, the interventions increase the caregivers’ interest and motivation to promote the young child’s motor development, which is essential in maintaining the behaviour after the end of the interventions. Supervision and guidance provided for the child’s caregivers concerning knowledge and skills about age-appropriate behaviours and facilitation of their child’s motor development increases the caregivers’ self-confidence, interest, and motivation.

Parents are a determinant factor in a child’s development of motor skills. Studies show that programmes in which health visitors supervise parents may improve infants’ motor skills. This study examines which factors health visitors have found to enhance and hamper the implementation of a motor development programme among socially vulnerable parents of infants. The data consist of three group interviews with 4 health visitors in each (12 health visitors in total) and a subsequent member check with 27 health visitors. All were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, and a thematic analysis was conducted. The results show that according to the health visitors, the programme increases the ability and willingness of parents to engage in co-producing its implementation. In particular, the materials that they hand out to the parents enhance the implementation. On the other hand, they perceive the limited time provided for the implementation, together with the many pressing needs of the families, as hampering the implementation. Consequently, the study can inform future policies and programmes for frontline workers and socially vulnerable parents of infants.

Poor motor skills are associated with several factors that might delay children’s development. Therefore, early programs to promote a child’s motor development are essential. Within the first year of life, parents have a critical role in promoting their infant’s motor development. However, little research has explored parent-directed programs that promote infant development in a Scandinavian context. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a parent-directed program to improve infant motor development. Methods: Parents of infants received a parent-directed program that included guidance from health visitors on ways to promote motor development, videos with motor development activities and a bag with related materials. Two municipalities in Denmark took part in the study (one intervention, one control). Health visitors in both municipalities measured the infants’ age-appropriate motor skills once when the infants were between 9–11 months of age. A logistic regression model was used to analyze the data. Results: No difference was detected in motor development over time in the two municipalities regarding the proportion of children with age-appropriate motor skills. Conclusions: A parent-directed program in which parents were guided to play and encourage motor development with their infant showed no effect on infants’ age-appropriate motor skills at 9–11 months.