You are viewing the site in preview mode

Skip to main content
Download PDF

Examining cross-sectional associations between Australian parents’ physical activity levels and their parenting confidence

BMC Public Health volume 25, Article number: 1686 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Previous research suggests that parenting confidence is important for child outcomes but what could influence parenting confidence is less clear. This study aims to examine associations between parental physical activity and general and physical activity-specific parenting confidence.

Methods

Baseline data from the Let’s Grow randomised controlled trial of 1481 parents (1338 mothers and 143 fathers) were used. Parent physical activity was device-assessed and self-reported. An adapted version of the HAPPY scale and the Me as a Parent scale were used to assess physical activity-specific and general parenting confidence respectively. Associations were assessed separately for mothers and fathers via linear regressions adjusted for parents’ age, education, and siblings.

Results

Self-reported physical activity was positively associated with general and physical activity-specific parenting confidence for mothers (β = 0.19, CI95 = 0.0, 0.34 and β = 0.04, CI95 = 0.02, 0.05 respectively). No associations were found between device-assessed physical activity and either parenting confidence for mothers. No associations were found for fathers.

Conclusions

Self-reported physical activity was most robustly associated with physical activity-specific parenting confidence for mothers. A similar pattern was observed for fathers but the smaller sample size widened confidence intervals. Mothers’ perceptions of their physical activity may be an important consideration for future research. Understanding these associations may help to support parents in achieving optimal health outcomes for both themselves and their children.

Peer Review reports

Background

It is widely known that regular physical activity is crucial for adults to maintain optimal physical and mental health [1, 2], with previous research indicating that there is a positive relationship between regular physical activity participation and lower stress levels [3, 4]. Whilst all adults face daily stressors, parents have additional stress placed on them due to their family responsibilities [5]. This is particularly true for parents of young children who are required to juggle meeting their own needs with fulfilling those of their child [6].

In order to negate high stress levels, parents often adopt avoidant behaviours similar to those of the general population; increased screen viewing and sedentary behaviours, increased fast food consumption, and increased smoking and alcohol consumption [6, 7]. All of these behaviours have been linked to negative long term health outcomes [8, 9, 10, 11]. Further, parenting coping mechanisms can involve separating themselves from their child, such as allowing their child increased screen time [12]. These parenting strategies can be harmful to the parent/child bond and be associated with poorer family functioning [13, 14]. These can perpetuate negative long term health outcomes for children [14]. There is limited research into how parents are using more proactive coping mechanisms, such as physical activity participation, to negate their stress levels.

In addition to alleviating stress, regular physical activity participation may also be crucial to facilitating parenting confidence; the measure of how competent a parent feels in their ability to support their child’s growth and development [15, 16]. The terms confidence, competence, self-esteem and self-efficacy are often used interchangeably throughout parenting literature, despite their different meanings [16, 17]. This paper has adopted the term parenting confidence, due to its encapsulation of the concept of perceived competence. Existing literature suggests that higher confidence levels are associated with lower stress and anxiety levels and increased overall wellbeing, and that more confident parents utilise more optimal parenting practices [17].

Parenting confidence can be predicted by a range of factors, such as parent age, education level, and previous parenting experience. Previous research has found maternal age [18, 19], education level [18] and level of family functioning (the quality of interactions and relationships within the family) [20] to be positive predictors of mothers’ confidence during the early years. Predictors of parenting confidence for fathers have been less often researched, though family income levels and family functioning have been found to be positively associated with confidence in fathers of toddlers [20]. For both mothers and fathers, prior parenting experience, observations of successful parenting, and self-perception of parenting abilities have been reported as predictors of parenting confidence also [15]. Physical activity has not been considered as a potential predictor of parenting confidence, despite its links to lowered stress, which results in optimal parenting practices. Thus, it could be rationalised that there may be an association between physical activity and parenting confidence directly.

Confidence with regard to health behaviours has previously been viewed as being operationalised differently by individuals according to different domains of health [21]. Similarly, parenting confidence can be viewed as an over-arching level of confidence with parenting, and can also be specific to different domains of parenting [15]. One logical domain when considering associations with parent physical activity, is physical activity-specific parenting confidence, conceptualised by the authors in this study as a parent’s confidence in their ability to plan and promote physical activity for their child. No studies have investigated possible associations between parental physical activity participation and parenting confidence, either general or behaviour specific. To address this knowledge gap, this study aimed to better understand the associations between parental physical activity and parenting confidence, both general and physical activity-specific. Due to the absence of research on these associations, and the paucity of research incorporating fathers of young children, a secondary aim was to investigate if these associations were different for mothers and for fathers. To remove the potential cofounders of child and family factors, investigation of differences in associations within mother-father family dyads was also included undertaken within the secondary aim.

Methods

Data for this study were drawn from Let’s Grow, a randomised controlled trial of a 12 month mHealth intervention to support parents of toddlers across Australia to improve their child’s physical activity, sedentary behaviours and sleep [22]. Recruitment for Let’s Grow occurred between March 2021 and June 2022 via social media advertising. Parents were included in the study if they were aged 18 or above, resided in Australia, and had a phone capable of accessing the internet for the broader intervention delivery. Further, their child was required to be aged between 18 and 35 months at the time of recruitment, and walking independently. Where one parent responded to the recruitment advertisement, they were given the option to invite their partner or other caregiver to participate in the study, if applicable. This study utilised baseline device-assessed physical activity and questionnaire data collected from parents prior to randomisation.

Data collection

Physical activity

Device-assessed physical activity data were collected via ActiGraph GT3X + accelerometers, using a 5-second epoch. Parents were mailed accelerometers and asked to wear them continuously on their right hip (attached to a band) for an eight day period, removing only for water-based activities. Non-wear time was considered to be 20 min of consecutive zero counts. Wake time accelerometer data were extracted and processed using a Microsoft Excel macro. The minimum requirement to be included for analyses for this study was any four days of greater than or equal to 10 hours of wake time wear. Validated accelerometer cut points of > 1952 counts/minute were used to determine weekly moderate-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) minutes. Accelerometer data were adjusted for wear time using the residuals method [23]. Parent reported physical activity data were collected via the baseline questionnaire. One open-ended adapted item asked parents to report their time in hours and minutes spent engaging in MVPA or “huff and puff” activities across a usual week [24].

Parenting confidence

General parenting was assessed via the Me as a Parent questionnaire; a 16-item scale measuring confidence with four items across each of the four domains of self-efficacy (how effectively a parent feels they can overcome parenting problems), personal agency (parent beliefs about their ability to contribute to their child’s behaviour and outcomes), self-sufficiency (how resourced a parent feels to independently problem solve in their parenting) and self-management (how capably a parent can set, monitor, and self-evaluate their parenting goals) [25]. Pearson correlation coefficients between 0.7 and 0.8 indicate adequate reliability, with Me as a Parent scoring in this range (r = 0.71). Further, internal reliability for the overall scale was found to be adequate as indicated by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.84. The domains of self-efficacy, personal agency, self-management and self-sufficiency had Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of 0.73, 0.69, 0.69 and 0.62 respectively [25]. Although the internal reliability of some domains fell below 0.70, this is not uncommon for measures developed to explore new constructs. Further, the overall scale was determined to have adequate reliability, making it suitable for use in this study [26]. Items were answered on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree), with the exception of the personal agency domain, which was reverse scored, as per scoring guidelines. Responses to each item were summed to form domain scores (possible range from 4 to 20), and an overall parenting confidence score (possible range from 16 to 80), with higher scores equating to higher parenting confidence. Parents were excluded from analyses if they were missing four or more individual items across the measure, and data were imputed with mean scores if parents were missing three items or less.

Physical activity-specific parenting confidence was assessed using four adapted items from the HAPPY study (example item: “I can get [child name] to participate in a range of physical activities) [27]. Items were answered on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all confident to 5 = extremely confident), and internal reliability for this scale is indicated by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.77 [27]. Test-retest reliability for these questions were rated as either fair, moderate or substantial, as indicated by Kappa coefficients range (κ = 0.34–0.65) [27]. A physical activity parenting confidence score was generated from mean scores to responses (possible range 4 to 20), and collapsed as per scoring guidelines to 1 to 5. Higher scores indicated higher physical activity-specific parenting confidence. Parents were excluded from analyses if they were missing two or more individual items, and mean values using non-missing variables were imputed if parents were missing one or two items.

Demographic information

Parent demographic information was collected via baseline questionnaires also. Parents were asked to provide their gender (female, male, prefer not to say, prefer to self-describe), however as all participants identified as being either male or female they were categorised as fathers and mothers, respectively. Further, parents were asked to provide their age in years, education (incomplete high school, completed high school, trade/apprenticeship/certificate, diploma, university degree, post-graduate qualification; dichotomised to completed tertiary education or did not complete tertiary education) and country of birth (Australia, other). Additionally, parents were asked if their child in the study had siblings living in the house (no, yes– older, yes– younger, yes– older and younger; dichotomised to yes or no).

Data analyses

Data were analysed using Stata 17 (StataCorp, Texas, USA). Independent t-tests were used to assess differences in physical activity and parenting confidence between mothers and fathers. Separate linear regression models were run for each physical activity and parenting confidence measure, for both mothers and fathers. Models were adjusted for parent age, education and if the parent had other children, to account for their previously mentioned associations with parenting confidence. To investigate potential differences in associations between physical activity and confidence levels between parents of the same child, mixed effects linear regression models with random intercepts at the family-level were conducted within the sub-sample of mother-father dyads.

Results

Participant characteristics

In total, 1507 parents (1358 mothers, 149 fathers, 133 mother-father dyads) were recruited to the Let’s Grow trial and 1481 (1338 mothers, 143 fathers, 128 mother-father dyads) were included in this study. Participants were excluded from this study on the basis of missing data; missing parenting confidence scales (n = 5 general parenting confidence scale, n = 1 physical activity-specific parenting scale), missing self-reported physical activity (n = 13) and missing sibling status (n = 6). One additional participant was excluded due to identifying as a grandparent. A further 349 parents did not provide valid accelerometer data, hence the sample for analyses involving accelerometer data was 1132 (1019 mothers, 113 fathers, 94 mother-father dyads). All descriptive characteristics were similar across both the main sample and the sub-sample with valid accelerometer data (data not shown). Therefore, only descriptive characteristics of the main sample are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1 Descriptive characteristics of participants (n = 1481)
Full size table

The only significant differences between mothers and fathers in demographic characteristics were that mothers tended to be younger (t(1479) = -5.71, p = < 0.001) and a higher proportion were university educated (t(1479) = 2.97, p = 0.003). There were statistically significant differences in device-assessed weekly hours in moderate-vigorous physical activity with mothers (m = 5.13, SD ± 2.06) less active than fathers (m = 6.11, SD ± 2.81; t(1088) = -4.54, p = < 0.001). Statistically significant differences were also observed in self-reported weekly hours in moderate-vigorous physical activity (t(1479) = -6.35, p = < 0.001) with mothers (m = 2.51, SD ± 2.79) less active than fathers (m = 4.37, SD ± 6.47). Within the domains of general parenting confidence, statistically significant differences were observed with mothers scoring higher than fathers in the domains of personal agency (mothers m = 15.99, SD ± 2.19; fathers m = 15.54, SD ± 2.51; t(1475) = 2.30, p = 0.02) and self-management (mothers m = 14.64, SD ± 2.27; fathers m = 14.15, SD ± 2.48; t(1468) = 2.47, p = 0.01).

Self-reported physical activity was positively associated with general parenting confidence (β = 0.19, CI95 = 0.05, 0.34) for mothers, with this association being driven by the domains of self-management (β = 0.09, CI95 = 0.05, 0.13) and self-sufficiency (β = 0.04, CI95 = < 0.00, 0.09). Self-reported physical activity was also positively associated with physical activity-specific parenting confidence (β = 0.04, CI95 = 0.02, 0.05) for mothers. There were no associations found between device-assessed physical activity and either form of parenting confidence for mothers, or within any domains. While associations were trending in the same direction for fathers as for mothers, none reached statistical significance, with the exception of device-assessed physical activity and the self-efficacy domain (β = 0.18, CI95 = < 0.01, 0.35). All associations are presented in Table 2.

Table 2 Associations between MVPA and parenting confidence for mothers and fathers separately
Full size table

In addition to the differences in demographic and physical activity scores observed in the main sample, which were replicated here, fathers also had a significantly lower score than mothers in the self-management domain (mothers m = 14.64, SD ± 2.09; fathers m = 14.09, SD ± 2.50; t(123) = 2.50, p = 0.01) within the mother-father dyad subsample. Also within this subsample, self-reported physical activity was positively associated with physical activity-specific parenting confidence for mothers (β = 0.09, CI95 = 0.03, 0.15). There were no other associations found between either assessment of physical activity or parenting confidence for mothers or fathers. Fathers did however have a significantly lower score than mothers in the self-management domain (mothers m = 14.64, SD ± 2.09; fathers m = 14.10, SD ± 2.50; t(246) = 2.04, p = 0.04). All mother-father dyad associations are presented in Table 3.

Table 3 Associations between MVPA and parenting confidence within mother-father dyads
Full size table

Discussion

This study examined associations between parents’ physical activity levels, both self-reported and device measured, and their general and physical activity-specific parenting confidence. Increasing understanding of these associations is important to better support parents to achieve optimal health outcomes for both themselves and their children. This study found that mothers were significantly less active than fathers in both device-assessed and self-reported measures. Mothers scored higher than fathers in the general parenting confidence domains of personal agency and self-management, in addition to having the domains of self-management and self-sufficiency act as a driver of confidence associations. The key findings of this study were that mothers’ self-reported physical activity was positively associated with both general and physical activity-specific parenting confidence. Whilst these findings were statistically significant, the associations were relatively small. There were no associations observed for fathers.

The associations between mothers’ self-reported physical activity and their parenting confidences may be explained by the additional resources that those mothers with greater physical activity levels have available. For example, previous literature has found that many women decrease the duration and/or intensity of physical activity during pregnancy, and often do not increase their activity levels back to where they were pre-pregnancy [28]. This is in part due to mothers of young children facing new barriers to being physically active such as caring responsibilities, reduced household finances, fatigue, and reduced social supports [29]. As such, it could be hypothesised that the mothers who reported themselves as being more active are those who have the support and resources to participate in structured physical activity outside of the home. Those mothers who are well resourced may have higher levels of self-confidence within themselves which could flow on to their general parenting confidence, consistent with previous research that identified mothers’ self-confidence as a significant predictor of their general parenting confidence [20]. Increased support and resources in conjunction with high self-confidence, may explain the increase in mothers’ confidence being driven in this study by both self-management and self-sufficiency.

Although associations were found between mothers’ self-reported physical activity and both types of parenting confidence, these associations were not observed for mothers’ device-assessed physical activity. This may be due to accelerometers picking up all movement of a high enough intensity, including incidental movement such as household chores or playing with their children, which mothers may not consider to be physical activity [30]. Further, it is possible that mothers do not recognise or recall the amount or intensity levels of these activities [31]. Instead, mothers may perceive their activity levels as being low due to giving up more structured activities that they readily recognise as physical activity such as organised sport and gym memberships, during the transition to motherhood [32]. These examples offer an explanation as to why mothers in this study under-reported their physical activity levels when compared to their device-measured activity. This is in conflict with previous literature that suggests most adults overestimate their activity levels when self-reporting [29, 33]. However, one previous study with women has similarly found under-reporting of physical activity using a single-item measure when compared to device-measured physical activity [34]. In that study, whilst there was incongruence between the two measures, there was consonance between self-report of physical activity and whether or not participants were classified as sufficiently (or insufficiently) active using device measures [34]. Thus, the single-item measure was determined to be a valid tool for screening participant activity levels.

This study found no associations between fathers’ device-assessed or self-reported physical activity and either type of parenting confidence. The coefficients suggest similar patterns to mothers, but wider confidence intervals due to the small sample size. This may be explained by fathers’ general parenting confidence being predicted by family functioning, thus their confidence being directionally similar to that of mothers [20]. The one finding for fathers in this study that reached statistical significance was the positive association between device-assessed activity and self-efficacy. Existing literature has highlighted parenting stress as a predictor for fathers’ self-efficacy, so it could be concluded that more active fathers are able to better manage stress levels, resulting in higher levels of self-efficacy [3, 4, 20]. The potential for different mechanisms to be a factor for fathers compared to mothers, even if the outcomes are the same, further highlights the need for greater research in this space, especially incorporating fathers.

In contrast with mothers, previous research has suggested that fathers’ self-confidence is not a predictor for general parenting confidence; that fathers are more likely to compartmentalise their self and their parenting self into different spheres [20]. The household dynamic of young families has been previously described as a manager-helper dynamic, in which mothers are the primary household organisers, or managers, with fathers acting in the helper role to assist mothers [20]. This dynamic may explain the lower scores for fathers in the self-management domain observed in the full sample. Research that examines personal agency as a separate construct from parenting self-efficacy at large is limited, with research including fathers even more sparce. However, literature that has included personal agency as a component of parenting self-efficacy for fathers has detailed that higher parenting self-efficacy overall has been linked to lower levels of anxiety and overall stress [17]. The lower levels of personal agency observed in fathers may be acting as a driver to their increased physical activity participation in an attempt to negate stress. Further studies with a larger sample of fathers are required to more definitely determine associations for fathers.

The pattern of under-reporting time spent in MVPA was not observed in fathers, which may be due to the types of activities fathers are participating in. Existing literature on fathers’ MVPA has found that fathers of young children experience a decline in MVPA when compared to men without children, possibly due to decreases in general activities, such as active transport [35]. Further, fathers do not experience a decline in sport participation [35]. This may mean that the majority of fathers’ time spent in MVPA in this study was comprised of sport participation, accounting for greater awareness and accuracy of time spent in MVPA. Findings from this study that fathers, are on average more active than mothers (according to both self-report and device-assessed measures), are consistent with gender differences reported in existing physical activity participation research [36].

A unique feature of this work was the inclusion of mother-father dyads. Within the 128 mother-father dyads, the pattern of results were generally similar to the overall sample results. However, likely due to the small sample size, fewer results reached the threshold of statistical significance. For mothers within the mother-father dyad sample, only the association between self-reported physical activity and physical activity-specific parenting confidence persisted. This highlights that this particular finding may be an important factor for mothers in planning and modelling physical activity for their child. The persistence of this association also speaks to its robustness. Neither physical activity-specific nor general parenting confidence levels within the dyads were statistically different between mothers and fathers, with the exception of fathers having lower self-management scores. While the lower self-management score for fathers was also found in the larger sample, it being evident in the dyad sub-sample highlights the significance of this finding and speaks to the fact that fathers have lower self-management scores than mothers, even when parenting the same child. This is likely to be a significant finding given its presence in the larger sample also.

This study featured a large sample of mothers from across Australia, and is strengthened by the inclusion of fathers. The inclusion of mother-father dyads provided valuable insight into both general and physical activity-specific parenting confidence, given both parents are living within the same household and therefore have the same level of family function and are parenting the same child(ren). This study was limited by the highly active nature of participants as indicated by device-assessed activity. This may mean that findings are not generalisable to all parents. Additionally, this study’s cross-sectional design limits its ability to determine the direction of associations. Finally, this study was limited by the small mother-father dyad sub-sample, as well as the small sample of fathers, as the limited size of these samples might not have provided enough statistical power to identify associations. In addition, the results may not be applicable to a wider population due to potential lack of diversity among the participating fathers. Considering the scarcity of existing research on fathers, the findings presented here play a crucial role in increasing the knowledge base in this area.

Conclusion

This study aimed to better understand the associations between parental physical activity and parenting confidence (both general and physical activity-specific confidence). Findings from this study suggest that mothers’ perceived physical activity levels may be pertinent to their confidence levels. Further research into how mothers’ view their levels of physical activity and supporting mothers by drawing awareness to the activity they can accumulate through incidental activity, may assist with boosting confidence. This may be particularly useful to boosting physical activity-specific parenting confidence, given the robustness of the findings in this study, as indicated by it persisting in the smaller mother-father dyad sample. Further research that investigates confidence for fathers, particularly in the domain of personal agency, may be useful to providing future parenting interventions to support fathers to enhance their parenting confidence. Increasing understanding of the associations between physical activity and parenting confidence may help to support parents of young children in achieving optimal health outcomes for both themselves, and their children.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Reiner M, Niermann C, Jekauc D, Woll A. Long-term health benefits of physical activity - a systematic review of longitudinal studies. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):1–9. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/1471-2458-13-813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Mammen G, Faulkner G. Physical activity and the prevention of depression: a systematic review of prospective studies. Am J Prev Med. 2013;45(5):649–57. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.amepre.2013.08.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Childs E, de Wit H. Regular exercise is associated with emotional resilience to acute stress in healthy adults. Front Psychol. 2014;5:161. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3389/fphys.2014.00161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Mucke M, Ludyga S, Colledge F, Gerber M. Influence of regular physical activity and fitness on stress reactivity as measured with the Trier Social Stress Test protocol: a systematic review. Sports Med. 2018;48:2607– 2622. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1007/s40279-018-0979-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Andreadakis E, Laurin J, Joussemet M, Mageau G. Toddler temperament, parent stress, and autonomy support. J Child Fam Stud. 2020;29:3029–43. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1007/s10826-020-01793-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jones J, Call T, Wolford S, McWey L. Parental stress and child outcomes: the mediating role of family conflict. J Child Fam Stud. 2021;30:746–56. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1007/s10826-021-01904-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hruska V, Darlington G, Haines J, Ma D. Parent stress as a consideration in childhood obesity prevention: results from the Guelph Family Health Study, a pilot randomized controlled trial. Nutrients. 2020;12. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3390/nu12061835

  8. Park JH, Moon JH, Kim HJ, Kong MH, Oh YH. Sedentary lifestyle: overview of updated evidence of potential health risks. Korean J Fam Med. 2020;41(6):365–73. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.4082/kjfm.20.0165

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Lane MM, Gamage E, Du S, Ashtree DN, McGuinness AJ, Gauci S, et al. Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses. BMJ. 2024;384:e077310. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1136/bmj-2023-077310

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Parmar MP, Kaur M, Bhavanam S, Mulaka GSR, Ishfaq L, Vempati R, et al. A systematic review of the effects of smoking on the cardiovascular system and general health. Cureus. 2023;15(4):e38073. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.7759/cureus.38073

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Zhao J, Stockwell T, Naimi T, Churchill S, Clay J, Sherk A. Association between daily alcohol intake and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and Meta-analyses. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(3):e236185–e. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.6185

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Chen C, Chen S, Wen P, Snow C. Are screen devices soothing children or soothing parents? Investigating the relationships among children’s exposure to different types of screen media, parental efficacy and home literary practices. Comput Hum Behav. 2020;112. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106462

  13. Xu H, Wen LM, Rissel C. Associations of parental influences with physical activity and screen time among young children: a systematic review. J Obes. 2015;2015:546925. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1155/2015/546925

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Marsh S, Dobson R, Maddison R. The relationship between household chaos and child, parent, and family outcomes: a systematic scoping review. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):513. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12889-020-08587-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Vance A, Brandon D. Delineating among parenting confidence, parenting self-efficacy and competence. ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 2017;40(4):E18–37. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1097/ANS.0000000000000179

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Crncec R, Barnett B, Matthey S. Review of scales of parenting confidence. J Nurs Meas. 2010;18(3):210–40. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1891/1061-3749.18.3.210

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Albanese A, Russo G, Geller P. The role of parental self-efficacy in parent and child well-being: a systematic review of associated outcomes. Child Care Health Dev. 2019;45:333–63. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/cch.12661

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bryanton J, Gagnon A, Hatem M, Johnston C. Predictors of early parenting self-efficacy. Nurs Res. 2008;57(4):252–9. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1097/01.NNR.0000313490.56788.cd

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ngai F, Wai-Chi Chan S, Ip W. Predictors and correlates of maternal role competence and satisfaction. Nurs Res. 2010;59(3):185–93. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1097/NNR.0b013e3181dbb9ee

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sevigny P, Loutzenhiser L. Predictors of parenting self-efficacy in mothers and fathers of toddlers. Child Care Health Dev. 2009;362:179–89. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2009.00980.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Williams D, Rhodes R. The confounded self-efficacy construct: conceptual analysis and recommendations for future research. Health Psychol Rev. 2016;10(2):113–28. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/17437199.2014.941998

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hesketh K, Downing K, Galland B, Nicholson J, Taylor R, Orellana L et al. Protocol for the let’s grow randomised controlled trial: examining efficacy, cost-effectiveness and scalability of a m-Health intervention for movement behaviours in toddlers. BMJ Open. 2022;12. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057521

  23. Freedson P, Melanson E, Sirard J. Calibration of the computer science and applications, inc. Accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1998;30(5):777–81. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1097/00005768-199805000-00021

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Prochaska J, Sallis J, Long B. A physical activity screening measure for use with adolescents in primary care. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001;155(5):554–9. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1001/archpedi.155.5.554

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hamilton V, Matthews J, Crawford S. Development and preliminary validation of a parenting self-regulation scale: "Me as a Parent ". J Child Fam Stud. 2015;24:2853–64. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1007/s10826-014-0089-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Taber K. The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Res Sci Educ. 2018;48(6):1273–96. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hinkley T, Salmon J, Okely A, Crawford D, Hesketh K. The HAPPY study: development and reliability of a parent survey to assess correlates of preschool children’s physical activity. J Sci Med Sport. 2012;15:407–17. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.jsams.2011.12.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Abbasi M, van den Akker O. A systematic review of changes in women’s physical activity before and during pregnancy and the postnatal period. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2015;33(4):325–58. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1080/02646838.2015.1012710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Saligheh M, McNamara B, Rooney R. Perceived barriers and enablers of physical activity in postpartum women: a qualitative approach. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16:131. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12884-016-0908-x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Prince S, Adamo K, Hamel M, Hardt J, Connor Gorber S, Tremblay M. A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2008;5. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/1479-5868-5-56

  31. Murphy M, Donnelly P, breslin G, Shibli S, Nevill A. Does doing housework keep you healthy? The contribution of domestic physical activity to meeting current recommendations for health. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:966. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/1471-2458-13-966

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Werneck A, Winpenny E, van Sluijs E, Corder K. Cohabitating and becoming a parent: associations with changes in physical activity in the 1970 British cohort study. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1085). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12889-020-09187-2

  33. Ferrari P, Friedenreich C, Matthews C. The role of measurement error in estimating levels of physical activity. Am J Epidmiol. 2007;166(7):832–40. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1093/aje/kwm148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Milton K, Clemes S, Bull F. Can a single question provide an accurate measure of physical activity? Brit J Sport Med. 2013;47(1):44. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1136/bjsports-2011-090899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Pot N, Keizer R. Physical activity and sport participation: A systematic review of the impact of fatherhood. Prev Med Rep. 2016;4:121–7. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.05.018

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Bellows-Riecken K, Rhodes R. A birth of inactivity? A review of physical activity and parenthood. Prev Med. 2008;46:99–110. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.08.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Let’s Grow is supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council (GNT 1162980). CS is supported by a Deakin University Post-Graduate Scholarship. KH is supported by a Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship (105929).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition (IPAN), School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong VIC 322, Geelong, VIC, 3220, Australia

    Cynthia E. Smith, Jill A. Hnatiuk & Kylie D. Hesketh

  2. NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence, Department of General Practice, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, SPHERE, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia

    Sharinne B. Crawford

  3. Judith Lumley Centre, School of Nursing and Midwifery, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC, 3086, Australia

    Sharinne B. Crawford

Authors
  1. Cynthia E. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jill A. Hnatiuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sharinne B. Crawford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kylie D. Hesketh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study concept and design. Data analysis was performed by CS. The first draft of the manuscript was written by CS, and all co-authors (JH, SC, KH) commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cynthia E. Smith.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study utilises data from the Let’s Grow study, approved by the Deakin University Human Research Ethics Committee (2020-077). The collection of all data were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations of the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants provided informed consent for themselves and their child prior to participating in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Smith, C.E., Hnatiuk, J.A., Crawford, S.B. et al. Examining cross-sectional associations between Australian parents’ physical activity levels and their parenting confidence. BMC Public Health 25, 1686 (2025). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12889-025-22833-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12889-025-22833-x

Keywords

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us