Sociodemographic differences in patterns of sedentary and physically active behavior in children and adolescents

Faculty of Nursing, University of Iceland, Reykjavík.
Acta Paediatrica (Impact Factor: 1.84). 05/2001; 90(4):429-35. DOI: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2001.tb00445.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Numerous studies have found that involvement in moderate-intensity and strenuous activity has positive effects on health. This study considered the prevalence of different aspects of physical activity and sedentary behavior in 11-16-y-olds based on a representative national survey of 3270 Icelandic primary schoolchildren (91% response rate). All-day sedentary behavior was extremely rare (< 1%), and the vast majority (91%) were physically active (> or = 3 times per week) during school or leisure time, thanks largely to school physical education. Only 39% were physically active (> or = 3 times per week) during leisure time, and only 29% engaged in regular (> or = 3 times per week) leisure time strenuous exercise. Girls were more sedentary, less leisure time physically active, and less involved in leisure time strenuous exercise. Sedentary behavior increased and physically active behavior decreased with age, especially after early adolescence. However, there were no age differences in strenuous leisure time exercise. Upper-class students were less sedentary and more physically active during leisure time than working-class students. Finally, rural students were more sedentary during leisure time, and less physically active than students from urban areas. An interaction was found between age and residence when predicting leisure time physical activity, indicating that the inverse age-activity relationship in urban areas is partly reversed in rural areas. Conclusion: Compulsory school physical education frequently failed to translate into voluntary physical involvement. Sociodemographic differences in physical activity were greater during leisure time, than during school and leisure time combined.

Download full-text


Available from: Runar Vilhjalmsson, Aug 20, 2015
1 Follower
  • Source
    • "In fact, families spending money and encourage their children to participate in sport and physical activity in order to develop their skills and becoming more social (Patnode et al., 2010; Mota & Silva, 1999). There have been many review articles in the past decade describing the correlates of physical activity among adolescents (Kristjansdottir & Vilhjalmsson, 2001; Humbert et al. , 2006). On the basis of the existing literature on families and talent development, few suggestions can be provided as to how parents and siblings should support the performer in his/her pursuit of excellence and on the specific types of behaviors that a young performer may perceive as pressure or support (Norm O'Reilly et al., 2012). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study tried to tackle the comparison of Socio-Economic Status (SES) of families and social support of parents for physical exercises of their children. In the present study the statistical subjects included high school students that were chosen cluster-randomly from two areas of Tehran city. These areas were 18 th (at south), and 5 th (at north). Finally, 272 out of 300 questionnaires were filled out and sent back correctly. Two main questionnaires were used to measure SES and parental support of children physical activity. Socio-economic status questionnaire (SES; Sharky, 1987) for determining 3 socio-economic variables (sexuality, income and literacy) was used. A research made questionnaire for determining the social support of parents for physical exercise of children. The validity of questionnaires determined by experts and the reliability = 0.81), and social support of parents for p -S test was used to ascertain data normality. Descriptive statistics (mean, frequencies), and inferential statistic (independent t-test) utilized to analyze data. The results indicated the significant difference between social support of parents for physical exercises at the North and South of Tehran city (p = 0.0001, t = 5.803). It seems more parental support of children will bring better situation for them to develop their skills via exersice. . Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and peer review under the responsibility of Prof. Dr. Kobus Maree, University of Pretoria, South Africa.
  • Source
    • "Criteria for urban and rural residence varied within and among countries. For example, urban Icelandic adolescents walked or cycled to school for about three times the distance of rural peers (Kristjansdottir and Vilhjalmsson, 2001). Rural areas in the USA tended to have extensive school bussing programmes, which was consistent with the observation that USA urban youth tended to more likely meet recommended PA levels (Lutfiyya et al., 2007). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Research considering physical activity (PA), physical inactivity and health outcomes among urban and rural youth has produced equivocal findings. This study examined PA, physical inactivity, sedentary behaviours and cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) in adolescents from urban and rural communities in the Portuguese Midlands. The sample included 362 adolescents (165 males, 197 females) of 13-16 years of age. CRF was assessed by the PACER test. A GT1M accelerometer was used to record 5 consecutive days of PA and time spent sedentary. Analyses of covariance (chronological age as co-variate) were performed to test the effect of the area of residence on sedentary behaviour, PA and CRF. Urban youth of both sexes spent less time in sedentary activities than rural youth. Urban males were more active than rural peers at the weekend, whereas urban females were significantly less active than rural females on week days and across all days assessed. Rural youth of both sexes had higher levels of CRF than urban youth. Area of residence was related to aerobic fitness, PA and time spent in sedentary behaviours among Portuguese youth. Interventions seeking to enhance health and active lifestyles in Portuguese youth should consider the potential impact of socio-geographic factors. © 2012 © The Author (2012). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: [email protected] /* */
    Health Promotion International 10/2012; 29(1). DOI:10.1093/heapro/das054 · 1.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The PA of children and young adolescents (<13 years) seems to benefit from open space and the perceived safety of rural areas [5] [7], possibly by these groups partaking in more unstructured activities [6] [19]. Like adults, adolescents' PA is more dependent on structured activities, which appear better facilitated by suburban and urban environments [12] [17] [18]. There is a negative association between socioeconomic status (SES) and PA in youth; children from lower SES families partake in less PA [20] [21] [22]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is evidence for lower physical activity (PA) in rural adults; it is important to evaluate how the environment influences the PA of children and adolescents. We compared the PA of 6485 English 10-15.9 year olds according to two systems for classifying the immediate environment. System one compared urban and rural areas. System two compared urban, town and fringe, and rural areas. Analyses were carried out separately for children (<13 years) and adolescents (>13 years). Rural children were more active than those from urban areas (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.15-1.66) as were adolescents (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11-1.51). Using trilateral division, children were more active if they lived in town and fringe (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.03-1.67) or rural (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.14-1.84) areas compared with urban areas. Adolescents from town and fringe areas were more active than urban dwellers (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.24-1.81). Rural adolescents' PA did not differ from urban dwellers'. Rural environments support PA in children but not that of adolescents. Town and fringe areas with mixed elements of rural and urban land use appear to facilitate and sustain PA in both children and adolescents.
    Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 06/2011; 39(7):696-703. DOI:10.1177/1403494811406315 · 3.13 Impact Factor
Show more