1. Introduction

The increasing prevalence of sedentary lifestyles among children and adolescents has triggered considerable global concern regarding youth health outcomes ( 1 ). According to the World Health Organization, more than 80% of school-aged adolescents worldwide fail to meet the minimum recommendation of 60 minutes of daily moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, contributing to the alarming rise in obesity, type 2 diabetes, and mental health disorders ( 2 ). In response, the school environment has become a central setting for public health interventions aimed at promoting active lifestyles and fostering lifelong healthy behaviors ( 3 , 4 ). The Health Promoting School (HPS) framework, endorsed by WHO, is a holistic approach to improving students’ health, well-being, and academic achievement ( 5 ). This approach integrates health promotion into the curriculum, school environment, and community engagement ( 6 ). Several empirical studies underscored the positive effects of HPS models on students’ physical activity levels, self-regulation, and general health awareness ( 7 - 9 ). However, despite these promising frameworks, many school-based physical activity initiatives still struggle with sustainability, engagement, and inclusivity, especially among youth with low motivation or limited access to sport infrastructure ( 10 - 12 ).

In this context, gamification—the strategic application of game elements in non-game settings—has emerged as a promising innovation to enhance student motivation, engagement, and behavioral outcomes in education and health promotion ( 13 , 14 ). Gamified interventions in school-based physical education (PE) have shown positive effects on increasing students’ enjoyment, intrinsic motivation, and participation in physical activities ( 15 , 16 ). These strategies often leverage elements such as point scoring, leaderboards, narrative quests, and digital feedback to transform traditional pedagogical models into more interactive and appealing experiences ( 17 ). For example, projects such as “FitQuest” and “SMART” used mobile and wearable technologies in gamified frameworks to significantly boost physical activity levels among children in diverse school settings ( 18 , 19 ).

While several studies explored the impact of HPS on children’s lifestyle and health knowledge ( 20 - 22 ), based on the literature search, few have examined how these interventions can be optimized to enhance deeper and more enduring forms of engagement in sport and physical activity. For instance, although initiatives like Physical Activity 4 Everyone and Girls in Sport demonstrate modest success in increasing physical activity participation ( 23 , 24 ), they do not extend their analysis to psychosocial outcomes. Therefore, there remains a need for further research to understand the long-term effects of gamified interventions and their impact on students’ development of sporting capital—a multidimensional construct involving physiological competencies, social engagement in sport, and psychological readiness that facilitate active participation in sports and physical activities ( 25 ). Despite its potential, sporting capital has been largely overlooked in studies on HPS interventions. Previous studies were not clearly differentiated between incidental physical activity and the cultivation of stable, identity-forming relationships with sport ( 5 , 6 , 16 , 17 ). Moreover, gamification—a rising pedagogical strategy known for enhancing engagement and motivation—has not yet been integrated into HPS frameworks, nor evaluated in terms of its contribution to building sporting capital.

A critical review of the literature has also revealed several structural and methodological challenges. First, many HPS interventions remain behaviorist in orientation, focusing narrowly on short-term behavior modification without embedding changes in students’ self-concept, autonomy, or social identity through sport ( 21 , 26 , 27 ). Second, the voices of students and families are often underrepresented in the evaluation of such programs, leading to gaps in understanding the home-school dynamic in health promotion ( 20 , 28 ). Third, there is a lack of intervention designs that combine co-creation, cultural responsiveness, and gamified engagement to maximize relevance and sustainability ( 20 , 22 , 24 , 28 ).

In the Iranian context, studies have similarly highlighted implementation challenges, including lack of student-centered design, inconsistent health education methods, and limited focus on psychosocial development through sport ( 9 , 29 , 30 ). Although the HPS program in Iran has led to improvements in basic health behaviors ( 31 , 32 ), it remains rooted in traditional models of health education. The integration of sport, identity, and motivation remains under-theorized and under-researched.

To address the aforementioned gaps, the present study investigates the effect of gamification on students’ sporting capital within the context of HPS, proposing a novel moderated model that incorporates gender, parental support, and socialization as key contextual variables. Unlike previous studies that primarily treated gamification as a tool for increasing physical activity or academic motivation ( 15 - 17 ), the present study conceptualizes gamification as a multidimensional educational strategy capable of enhancing not only physiological engagement but also social bonds and psychological investment in sport participation. By integrating Rowe’s sporting capital framework ( 25 ) with the ecological logic of the WHO’s health-promoting school model ( 5 - 6 ), this study advances an interdisciplinary approach that addresses both individual and environmental determinants of youth sport engagement. Furthermore, the inclusion of moderating variables such as gender, perceived parental support, and peer-based socialization enables a nuanced exploration of the differential impacts of gamification across student demographics and psychosocial profiles.

Despite the growing popularity of gamification in education, there is still a lack of empirical evidence on how it can systematically develop the sporting capital as a comprehensive outcome that includes physical competence, sport-related identity, and social belonging. Based on the literature search, previous research rarely integrated gamification with the established HPS framework to examine how game-based strategies might transform passive participation into sustained and identity-driven engagement ( 15 - 17 ). By testing a new model that combines gamification, sporting capital, and contextual moderators, our study offers a novel perspective on designing effective and culturally relevant school-based interventions. The findings are expected to bridge an important gap in the literature by demonstrating how gamification can move beyond temporary behavioral change to foster a deeper, self-sustaining sporting culture among adolescents. This insight can inform policy, pedagogy, and practice in the fields of health education and sport development. Accordingly, the present study aimed to: (1) evaluate the effectiveness of a six-week gamified intervention in enhancing students’ sporting capital; (2) examine the moderating role of perceived parental sport support (PPSSC) and sense of socialization (SSS) in shaping the intervention outcomes; and (3) compare within-group and between-group differences across gender to determine whether boys and girls similarly benefit from the program.

2. Methods

2.1. Design

This was a quasi-experimental study with a pretest-posttest control group design. The study was conducted in Health-Promoting Schools (HPS) across 22 municipal districts of Tehran, Iran, targeting adolescents aged 13 to 16 years (M±SD: 14.5±0.8). To ensure representation and gender balance, a cluster random sampling method with a stratified multi-stage design was employed.

2.2. Selection and Description of Participants

To ensure gender balance, schools were first stratified by gender, based on the actual distribution of certified HPS in Tehran, Iran. Then, from the official list of HPS schools, eight girls’ schools and five boys’ schools were randomly selected using a random number table. In each selected school, two existing classes (i.e., intact and pre-assigned classes formed by the school before the study) were chosen, and randomly assigned to experimental or control groups using a simple randomization procedure conducted by a researcher not involved in the intervention. The inclusion criteria were: (a) enrollment in HPS schools, (b) age between 13-16, (c) parental consent, and (d) physical ability to participate in PE. The exclusion criteria were: (a) absence for more than two sessions, (b) existing medical restrictions for exercise, or (c) incomplete questionnaires.

2.3. Sample Size Determination

The sample size was calculated based on the mean±SD values reported for the main outcome variables in the study by Azam Nezami and co-workers ( 33 ). Specifically, for the perceived parental sport support scale (2.21±0.54) and the sense of socialization scale (3.34±0.36), the effect size was estimated using G*Power software. Considering α=0.05, a statistical power of 0.80, and two groups (intervention and control), the minimum required sample size was determined to be 210 participants. To account for potential dropouts, an additional margin was considered, and the final sample size was set at 244 students (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The figure shows the CONSORT flow diagram of the study.

2.4. Data Collection and Measurements

Data were collected at Week 0 (pre-test) and Week 7 (post-test). The data collection tools were:

• Sporting Capital Questionnaire (SCQ): A 25-item researcher-developed questionnaire based on three-dimensional model of Rowe ( 25 ). This instrument covers physiological, psychological, and social sporting capital. Items were scored on a five-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree), resulting in a total score range from 25 to 125. Content validity was confirmed by an expert panel; psychometric indices indicated Cronbach’s alpha=0.79, CVR=0.83, and CVI=0.85.

• Perceived Parental Sport Support Scale (PPSSC): The four-item scale was developed by Wilk and colleagues ( 34 ) and the Persian version was validated by Azam Nezami and colleagues ( 33 ). In the present study, the Cronbach’s alpha was 0.73. Items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale, yielding scores from 4 to 20.

• Sense of Socialization Scale (SSS): A six-item scale was adapted from Wood and co-workers ( 35 ). The Persian version which was validated by Azam Nezami and colleagues ( 33 ) showed acceptable psychometric properties. In the present study, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to be 0.83. Items were rated on a five-point Likert scale, with possible scores ranging from 6 to 30.

2.5. Procedure

After receiving written consent from school principals, parents, and students, pre-test data were collected during Week 0. The intervention was implemented from Weeks 1 to 6 and post-test data were collected in Week 7. Students in the experimental group received a 6-week gamified physical education (PE) program, implemented during regular PE classes and delivered by two trained instructors. Key gamification elements such as challenge, ranking, reward, competition, and enjoyment were embedded into daily activities; student performance was continuously recorded and categorized after each session to reinforce engagement and provide structured feedback (Table 1). The control group continued standard PE sessions with no gamified components.

2.6. Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS version 26. Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, and frequency) were calculated. Assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance were tested using the Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, and Levene’s tests. Independent samples t-tests and chi-square tests were used to compare demographic variables between groups. To evaluate intervention effects, independent t-tests and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) were employed to assess between-group differences at post-test, with pre-test scores entered as covariates to control for baseline variations. Interaction terms were tested to examine the potential moderating effects of gender, parental support (PPSSC), and socialization (SSS); multiple regression models were also used to explore interaction effects where appropriate. Paired t-tests were conducted to evaluate within-group changes from pre-test to post-test. Effect sizes (Cohen’s d and partial η²) were calculated to estimate the magnitude of observed effects. The significance level was set at P<0.05.

3. Results

Before conducting inferential analyses, the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variances were tested and confirmed using the Shapiro-Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, and Levene’s tests (P>0.05). Demographic analysis showed that the mean age of the participants was 14.5±0.8 years. Of the total sample, 135 students were girls (55.3%) and 109 were boys (44.7%). Table 2 presents the baseline demographic characteristics of the experimental and control groups. No statistically significant differences were observed in mean age (P=0.381) or gender distribution (P=0.981), confirming baseline equivalence. Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of the experimental and control groups. No statistically significant differences were found between the groups regarding age or gender distribution, confirming group equivalence at baseline.

Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics (mean±SD) for sporting capital scores at pre-test and post-test across subgroups. Both experimental groups—girls and boys—demonstrated notable improvements from pre-test to post-test, while control groups exhibited minimal or no meaningful change.

To provide a comprehensive overview of subgroup differences, Table 4 summarizes all between- and within-group analyses related to the Perceived Parental Sport Support Scale (PPSSC) and the Sense of Socialization Scale (SSS).

Between-group comparisons revealed that students in the experimental groups showed notably greater improvements in sporting capital scores compared with those in the control groups. Specifically, ANCOVA confirmed a significant post-test difference between intervention and control groups (P<0.001), even after adjusting for baseline pre-test scores. This pattern was consistent across gender (moderation test: P=0.198). Importantly, students reporting higher perceived parental sport support achieved higher post-test sporting capital (74.1±4.6) than those with lower perceived support (70.8±5.2), and the Group × PPSSC interaction was significant (P=0.004). Likewise, students with stronger socialization tended to have higher post-test scores (72.8±5.0 vs. 70.6±5.5), although the Group × SSS interaction did not reach the conventional level of significance (P=0.057). Pre-to-post improvements in the experimental groups were significant (girls: P<0.001; boys: P<0.001), whereas changes in the control groups were not (girls: P=0.562; boys: P=0.401).

4. Discussion

This study aimed to investigate the impact of a gamified physical education intervention on students’ sporting capital within HPS, incorporating gender, perceived parental support, and sense of socialization as potential moderators. The findings offered several noteworthy contributions to the evolving discourse on school-based health interventions, adolescent engagement in sport, and educational gamification.

This study demonstrated that a six-week gamified physical education intervention led to significant improvements in students’ sporting capital compared with the control group. Both boys and girls benefitted equally from the program, indicating that the model is gender-inclusive. Importantly, parental support emerged as a significant moderator of outcomes, while socialization showed only a marginal effect. These findings suggested that the effectiveness of the intervention stems not only from the use of game elements to stimulate engagement but also from the interaction of family dynamics and motivational resources that extend beyond the classroom.

Beyond within-group improvements, the study provided clear between-group evidence supporting the effectiveness of the intervention. For instance, the experimental groups improved their total sporting capital scores by an average of over 11 points, while the control groups remained statistically unchanged. These between-group differences, verified through pre-post comparisons and supported by independent-sample ANCOVA results, underscored the causal impact of the gamified physical education (PE) intervention. Importantly, no significant differences existed between groups at baseline, which further confirmed the internal validity of the findings. The gender-stratified analysis also showed that both boys and girls derived comparable benefits, emphasizing the inclusiveness of the model. Moreover, by replacing complex moderation models with straightforward correlational insights, the study clearly demonstrated that students with higher parental support achieved greater post-test outcomes—strengthening the practical value of targeting familial factors in school health programs. Overall, these between-group results provided strong empirical justification for integrating gamified strategies into PE curricula under the HPS framework.

The significant enhancement in sporting capital among students in the experimental group supported the growing body of literature suggesting that gamification can be a powerful vehicle for behavior change and engagement in school settings ( 13 , 15 , 35 ). While previous studies showed that gamification enhances enjoyment and motivation in physical education (14, 18, 19), this study demonstrated that its influence extends to more profound constructs such as identity, autonomy, social belonging, and behavioral perseverance—components that align with the multidimensional nature of sporting capital ( 25 ).

The observed improvements in physiological capital—as reflected in components like physical competence and stamina—may be partially attributed to the structured challenge and competitive ranking systems implemented during the intervention. These elements likely stimulated not only motor skill engagement but also promoted sustained physical effort across sessions. Such mechanisms are consistent with previous research ( 13 , 15 ), which highlighted that gamification encourages repetitive practice and bodily engagement through embedded playfulness. Importantly, the observed gains in sporting capital extended beyond physiological benefits (e.g., physical competence, stamina), as reflected in the questionnaire items, to include enhanced psychological resilience and identity formation (e.g., “I consider myself a sporty person,” “I stay motivated to exercise even in poor weather”) and social bonding (e.g., “I feel a sense of belonging to a particular sport community”). These results align with the notion that gamification, when implemented holistically, stimulates not only the body but also the mind and social self, thereby cultivating the full spectrum of sporting capital dimensions. This tripartite advancement reflects the principle that active participation is more sustainable when anchored in self-identity and meaningful social contexts ( 5 , 6 , 11 ).

The impact of intervention on psychological sporting capital is especially noteworthy. Students reported greater self-regulation, confidence, and identification with sport after the gamified sessions. The positive shift in items such as “I continue exercising even when I have to do it alone” or “I consider myself a sporty person” suggests that gamification fosters a sport-related identity that transcends the classroom. This is consistent with Robertson and colleagues ( 18 ), who argued that narrative and reward systems in gamification strengthen emotional investment and personal connection with physical activity.

Moreover, the intervention yielded increases in social capital, particularly in the dimensions of interaction and belonging. Students who participated in the gamified program developed stronger social relationships and felt more connected to others in the sport environment. This finding is consistent with earlier studies ( 20 , 27 ) showing that shared participation and teamwork enhance social engagement in HPS-based sport programs. In this study, the inclusion of group tasks, leaderboards, and badges helped build these connections by encouraging cooperation, recognizing individual effort, and promoting common goals among participants.

While the intervention was effective across genders, the absence of a significant moderating effect of gender underscores the inclusivity and adaptability of gamification. Both boys and girls benefitted similarly, a finding aligns with Kam and co-workers ( 14 ), who noted that well-designed game elements transcend gendered preferences when embedded meaningfully into educational contexts.

Conversely, perceived parental support significantly moderated the impact of the intervention. Students who believed their parents supported their sport participation exhibited more substantial gains in sporting capital. This aligns with previous studies ( 28 , 36 ), which identified perceived parental involvement as a key enabler of physical activity engagement. It is plausible that parental encouragement reinforces the motivational cues introduced by gamified activities, facilitating transfer of learning beyond the school context.

The insignificant effect of socialization as a moderator suggests a more nuanced interpretation. While high socialization may enhance receptiveness to collaborative and competitive features of gamified physical education (PE), its marginal statistical significance implies that social cohesion alone does not guarantee engagement. This insight mirrors the studies conducted previously ( 10 , 11 ), which cautioned that school culture and teacher implementation fidelity also shape how students interpret and respond to interventions. According to our results, between-group comparisons confirmed that the experimental groups significantly improved more than the control groups. Therefore, the results reflect a robust between-group effect, which directly addresses concerns about comparative clarity.

Importantly, this study responds to critiques of HPS frameworks being too behaviorist and short-term ( 6 , 21 , 27 ). By demonstrating that gamification enhances deep-seated psychological and social resources—not merely activity levels—it extends the conceptual boundaries of what school health interventions can achieve. The present study also addressed the under-theorization of sporting identity and self-determined motivation in school health literature, particularly in the Iranian context ( 29 - 31 ).

The overall success of the intervention must be interpreted in light of its methodological strengths. The integration of real-time scoring, structured feedback, and progressive challenge—delivered over six weeks by trained coaches—reflects adherence to best practices in gamified program delivery ( 13 , 19 ). Moreover, the alignment of the intervention with WHO’s ecological model for HPS ensures systemic coherence and enhances the feasibility of scaling such models ( 5 , 6 ). The inclusion of structured reflection, individual feedback, and contextualized challenge—central to this intervention—resonates with best-practice recommendations from Langford and colleagues ( 6 ) and also Pickering and Pringle ( 19 ), who advocated for holistic, personalized, and sustainable models of health promotion in schools.

In summary, the present study contributed three new and important insights to the existing literature. First, it provided one of the few quasi-experimental applications of gamification within the Health Promoting Schools (HPS) framework, thereby extending evidence from Western contexts to the Middle Eastern setting. Second, it highlighted the central role of parental support in amplifying intervention effects, underscoring the value of integrating family-centered strategies into school-based programs. Third, by demonstrating improvements across physiological, psychological, and social dimensions of sporting capital, the study confirmed that gamification can nurture not only short-term activity but also deeper identity and resilience resources. These findings contrast with previous studies that emphasized enjoyment or motivation as the primary outcomes ( 14 , 18 , 19 ) and expanded the conceptual scope by showing that gamification can also reinforce long-term psychosocial assets. Taken together, the study situated gamified PE as a promising, context-sensitive approach to sustainable youth sport engagement, and offered a valuable reference point for future cross-cultural replications.

4.1. Limitations

While the findings of this study provided valuable insights into the role of gamification in fostering sporting capital among adolescents, certain limitations should be acknowledged. First, the quasi-experimental design, although robust, did not include random assignment at the individual level, which may limit causal inference. Second, the study relied on self-reported measures, which are subject to social desirability and recall biases. Third, the duration of the intervention (six weeks) may not capture long-term effects or sustainability of the behavioral change. Finally, the study was limited to selected districts in Tehran, Iran, which may restrict the generalizability of findings to other cultural or educational contexts.

5. Conclusions

This study contributes substantively to the academic and applied fields of school health promotion and sport pedagogy by demonstrating that gamification can effectively build sporting capital, especially when nested within HPS frameworks and supported by familial and social contexts. Policymakers, educators, and sport development practitioners should consider incorporating gamified strategies in physical education (PE) curricula, not only as motivational tools, but also as evidence-based frameworks for promoting student well-being, equity, and lifelong physical activity habits. In practice, schools are encouraged to integrate structured gamified modules into weekly PE lessons, train PE teachers to use adaptive game elements tailored to students’ age and social context, and foster stronger partnerships with parents to extend support beyond the classroom. Moreover, school managers can use the findings to design targeted workshops and peer-led activities that sustain students’ motivation throughout the academic year. Future research should examine the long-term sustainability of such gains, explore additional moderating variables (e.g., school climate, digital literacy), and test gamified models across diverse cultural settings to expand their practical relevance and scalability.

Acknowledgement

The researchers wish to thank all the individuals who participated in the study.

Authors’ Contribution

Amir Rahimi: Substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work; the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data for the work; drafting the work and reviewing it critically for important intellectual content. Leila Shahbazpour: Substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work; the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data for the work; drafting the work. Sanaz Mahboubi Osmavandani: Substantial contributions to the methodology development and data analysis; reviewing it critically for important intellectual content. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work, such that the questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work.

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

Funding

None.

Ethical Approval

The Ethics Review Board of the University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran, approved the present study with the code of IR.UT.SPORT.REC.1404.113. Also, written informed consent was obtained from the participants.

References

1. Sukatemin S, Muhalla HI, Muarrofah M, Utari D, Fitriani VY. Sedentary Lifestyle and the Threat of Obesity Among Young People. The Journal of Academic Science. 2025; 2(1):232-240.
2. 2. World Health Organization. Global action plan on physical activity 2018-2030: more active people for a healthier world. Geneva: WHO; 2018. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241514187
3. Hills AP, Dengel DR, Lubans DR. Supporting public health priorities: recommendations for physical education and physical activity promotion in schools. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2015; 57(4):368-74. DOI | PubMed
4. Chori A, Bai N, Nazari Y. The Correlation between Peer Support and Adherence to Physical Activity among Students: The Mediating Role of Self-Regulation. Int J School Health. 2025; 12(4):234-242. DOI
5. Langford R, Bonell CP, Jones HE, Pouliou T, Murphy SM, Waters E, et al. The WHO Health Promoting School framework for improving the health and well‐being of students and their academic achievement. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; 2014(4):CD008958. Publisher Full Text | DOI | PubMed [ PMC Free Article ]
6. Langford R, Bonell C, Jones H, Pouliou T, Murphy S, Waters E, et al. The World Health Organization’s Health Promoting Schools framework: a Cochrane Systematic Review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2015; 15:130. Publisher Full Text | DOI | PubMed [ PMC Free Article ]
7. Charoghchian Khorasani E, Peyman N, Yaghobi F. Health Promoting Schools in Iran: Features and Challenges. Journal of Education and Community Health. 2019; 6(3):127-129. DOI
8. McHugh C, Hurst A, Bethel A, Lloyd J, Logan S, Wyatt K. The impact of the World Health Organization Health Promoting Schools framework approach on diet and physical activity behaviours of adolescents in secondary schools: a systematic review. Public Health. 2020; 182:116-124. DOI | PubMed
9. Ahangari H, Peyman N, Pourtaheri A. Survey educational interventions provided in health promotion schools in Iran: a systematic review. Iranian Journal of Health Education and Health Promotion. 2023; 11(1):94-104. DOI Persian
10. Cassar S, Salmon J, Timperio A, Naylor P-J, van Nassau F, Contardo Ayala AM, et al. Adoption, implementation and sustainability of school-based physical activity and sedentary behaviour interventions in real-world settings: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2019; 16(1):120. Publisher Full Text | DOI | PubMed [ PMC Free Article ]
11. Christiansen L, Clausen K, Smedegaard S, Smedegaard S, Skovgaard T. A Qualitative Exploration of Implementation, Adaptation, and Sustainability of a School-Based Physical Activity Intervention: Move for Well-Being in School. SAGE Open. 2021; 11(1):215824402110000. DOI
12. Ostermeier E, Burke SM, Gilliland JA, Tucker P. Implementation models and frameworks used to guide community-based physical activity programs for children: a scoping review. BMC Public Health. 2023; 23(1):1604. Publisher Full Text | DOI | PubMed [ PMC Free Article ]
13. Baah C, Govender I, Subramaniam PR. Enhancing Learning Engagement: A Study on Gamification’s Influence on Motivation and Cognitive Load. Education Sciences. 2024; 14(10):1115. DOI
14. Kam M, Clune M, Jowsey T, Singleton R. Embracing ‘gameful learning’ with escape room games in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development. 2026;1-20. DOI
15. Mo W, Saibon J, Li Y, Li J, He Y. Effects of Game-based Physical Education Program on Enjoyment in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2023; 24(1):517. Publisher Full Text | DOI | PubMed [ PMC Free Article ]
16. Becerra-Fernández CA. Effect of gamification-based programs in the school physical education setting: a systematic review protocol. Journal of Physical Education and Human Movement. 2022; 4(2):32-39. DOI
17. Mao J, Lucas T. Gamification elements and their impacts on education: A review. Multidisciplinary Reviews. 2024; 8(5)
18. Robertson J, Macvean A, Fawkner S, Baker G, Jepson RG. Savouring our mistakes: Learning from the FitQuest project. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction. 2018; 16:55-67. DOI
19. Pickering K, Pringle A. Gamification for Physical Activity Behaviour Change. Perspect Public Health. 2018; 138(6):309-310. DOI | PubMed
20. Hahnraths MTH, Willeboordse M, Jungbauer ADHM, de Gier C, Schouten C, van Schayck CP. “Mummy, Can I Join a Sports Club?” A Qualitative Study on the Impact of Health-Promoting Schools on Health Behaviours in the Home Setting. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18(22):12219. Publisher Full Text | DOI | PubMed [ PMC Free Article ]
21. Dixon R, Robertson J. Paradigms of health education in Aotearoa New Zealand: a heuristic for critiquing the promises, practices, and potential of school-based health education. Curriculum Studies in Health and Physical Education. 2022; 14(1):56-72. DOI
22. Zaman MM, Rahman MM, Akanda MAW, Hassan AFMK, Khan MRH, Akter S, et al. A simple behavior change communication package for school children improves lifestyle of rural Bangladeshi students. Journal of Xiangya Medicine. 2021; 6(4):1-7. DOI
23. Sutherland RL, Campbell EM, Lubans DR, Morgan PJ, Nathan NK, Wolfenden L, et al. The Physical Activity 4 Everyone Cluster Randomized Trial: 2-Year Outcomes of a School Physical Activity Intervention Among Adolescents. Am J Prev Med. 2016; 51(2):195-205. DOI | PubMed
24. Okely AD, Lubans DR, Morgan PJ, Cotton W, Peralta L, Miller J, et al. Promoting physical activity among adolescent girls: the Girls in Sport group randomized trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017; 14(1):81. Publisher Full Text | DOI | PubMed [ PMC Free Article ]
25. Rowe NF. Sporting capital: a theoretical and empirical analysis of sport participation determinants and its application to sports development policy and practice. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics. 2015; 7(1):43-61. DOI
26. Van De Kop JH, Nauta J, den Uil AR, Maertens RLM, Verhoeff AP, Janssen M, et al. Co-creation, implementation, and evaluation of The Echnaton Health-Promoting School Program: A case study. Journal of Physical Education and Sport. 2025; 25(3):548-561. DOI
27. Ramos M, Tejera E, Cabeza E. Evaluation of the Health Promoting Schools (CEPS) Program in the Balearic Islands, Spain. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(17):10756. Publisher Full Text | DOI | PubMed [ PMC Free Article ]
28. John-Akinola Y, Nic Gabhainn S. Parental participation in primary schools; the views of parents and children. Health Education. 2014; 114(5):378-397. DOI
29. Kochaki GM, Kochaki AM, Charkazi AR, Bayani AA, Esmaeili AL, Shahnazi H. Investigating the Effect of Implementing the School Based Health Promotion Program on Students’ Mental Health. Knowledge & Health. 2011; 5(4):14-19. DOI Persian
30. Taslimi M. Health-oriented prescriptions for the development of school culture. Journal of Educational Studies. 2021; 17:35-44. Persian
31. Amini M, Salimi M, Tajvidi M. Studying Effect of Health Promotion School (HPS) Project on Social Sanitary Behavior of Elementary School Girls at Karaj 3rd Educational Zone. Journal of Health. 2018; 9(3):314-321. Persian
32. Ramezani H, Nikbakht H, Nasrollahpour Shirvani S, Ahoei K, Mohsenian H. Effect of Health Promoting School Program in Schools of the City of Babol: 2013. Journal of Health. 2016; 6(5):547-556. Persian
33. Azam Nezami N, Zarei A, Tojari F, Sadjadi Hezaveh SH. The effect of parental sports support and students’ perception of parental support on students’ sense of socialization. Research in Sport Sciences Education (RISSE). 2023; 1(2):11-20. Persian
34. Wood L, Frank LD, Giles-Corti B. Sense of community and its relationship with walking and neighborhood design. Soc Sci Med. 2010; 70(9):1381-90. DOI | PubMed
35. Faridniya H, Sefidgar A, Bagheri Ragheb G, Saberi A. The Impact of Gamified Exercise Activities on Increasing Motivation for Participation in Sports Classes: A Case Study of Public Library Staff in Tehran Province. Library and Information Sciences. 2024; 26(4):259-280. DOI Persian
36. Wilk P, Clark AF, Maltby A, Tucker P, Gilliland JA. Exploring the effect of parental influence on children’s physical activity: The mediating role of children’s perceptions of parental support. Prev Med. 2018; 106:79-85. DOI | PubMed