4.2 Article

School and individual-level characteristics are associated with children's moderate to vigorous-intensity physical activity during school recess

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1753-6405.2012.00914.x

关键词

child; motor activity; exercise; sport

资金

  1. Western Australian Department of Education and Training and Healthway [14104]
  2. Healthway PhD Scholarship [13701]
  3. NHMRC Senior Research Fellowship [503712]
  4. National Heart Foundation
  5. sanofi-aventis Career Development Award [CR 06M 2748]
  6. HMRC Capacity Building Grant [458668]
  7. Healthway [13701, 14104] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The objective of this study was to identify school environmental characteristics associated with moderate to vigorous physical activity during school recess, including morning and lunch breaks. Methods: Accelerometry data, child-level characteristics and school physical activity, policy and socio-cultural data were collected from 408 sixth grade children (mean age 11 years) attending 27 metropolitan primary schools in Perth, Western Australia. Hierarchical modelling identified key characteristics associated with children's recess moderate to vigorous physical activity (RMVPA). Results: Nearly 40% of variability in children's RMVPA was explained by school environment and individual characteristics identified in this study. Children's higher daily RMVPA was associated with newer schools, schools with a higher number of grassed surfaces per child and fewer shaded grassed surfaces, and the physical education coordinator meeting Australian physical activity guidelines. Conclusions: Characteristics of the school physical and social environments are strongly correlated with children's MPVA during recess. Implications: The school environment is an ideal target for maximising children's physical activity during recess. Future research could examine the impact of modifying these environmental characteristics on children's school physical activity.

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

4.2
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