4.7 Article

Efficacy and feasibility of lowering playground density to promote physical activity and to discourage sedentary time during recess at preschool: A pilot study

期刊

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 55, 期 4, 页码 319-321

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.07.014

关键词

Physical activity; Sedentary time; Health promotion; Preschool children; Accelerometry; Unstructured play

资金

  1. Research Foundation - Flanders [FWO B/10525/01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. This pilot study examined if lowering playground density is feasible and effective in improving preschoolers' activity and sedentary levels during recess. Method. Between November and December 2011, a within-subject design was used to study preschoolers' activity via accelerometty during recesses in the usual conditions (baseline) and with lower playground density (intervention). During the intervention, preschools scheduled extra recesses so that the number of classes usually sharing the playground was halved. Effects were investigated, using two-level linear regression models, in 128 4- to 6-year-old children (69 boys) from 4 preschools in Ghent. Belgium. The four preschool principals filled in a questionnaire after the intervention. Results. At baseline, available play space was on average 7.4 (SD = 1.7) m(2)/child; during the intervention this increased to 16.7 (SD = 5.1) m(2)/child. The intervention was effective in decreasing sedentary time (- 1 min; - 5.1%) and increasing light-to-vigorous (+ 1 min; + 5.1%) and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (+ 0.8 min; + 4.8%) during recess. None found it difficult to implement the intervention. All agreed it was possible to use this strategy in the future. Conclusions. Although it was feasible to implement this intervention, improvements in preschoolers' activity levels were small. This intervention could especially be important for preschools with higher playground density. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据