Systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates a significant link between motor competence and mental health in youth, indicating potential benefits for well-being.
Motor competence (MC) is essential for an active lifestyle, enabling confident and effective participation in physical activities. Emerging evidence suggests that MC may also benefit young people's mental health. Therefore, this review aimed to synthesize evidence on the association between MC and mental health in youth. We conducted a systematic search of five databases: APA PsycINFO, CINAHL Complete, PubMed, Scopus and SPORTDiscus. Eligible studies were peer‐reviewed, published in English after 2014, and included healthy youth aged 5–19 years. Studies were required to report a quantitative association between at least one aspect of MC and mental health. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by two researchers. Study quality was evaluated using NHLBI Quality Assessment Tool. We used a structural equation modeling approach for meta‐analysis, and publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's regression test. We identified 6049 records after removing duplicates. 17 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which two lacked the necessary statistics for meta‐analysis. Most studies were cross‐sectional ( n = 14) and included children ( n = 13). We observed a small but significant association between MC and mental health (effect size = 0.30, 95% confidence interval 0.20–0.40). Significant moderators included study design, age, type of MC assessment, risk of bias, domains of MC and mental health. Our findings suggest that MC was associated with mental health in youth. Participants' age, domains of MC and mental health emerged as the most relevant moderators. Further experimental studies, particularly in adolescents, are needed to investigate underlying mechanisms.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pöyliö et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: