Characteristics of travel to and from school among adolescents in NSW, Australia

University of Wollongong, City of Greater Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health (Impact Factor: 1.19). 06/2007; 43(11):755 - 761. DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1754.2007.01159.x

ABSTRACT Aim: Active transport to and from school is frequently identified as an opportunity to increase energy expenditure among young people. The epidemiology of travel behaviours among Grade 6, 8 and 10 students in NSW is reported.Methods: A representative population survey of students in NSW, Australia was conducted during February to May 2004 (n = 2750) and the prevalence of travelling to and from school by walking, car and public transport was determined for Grade 6, 8 and 10 students.Results: Among Grade 6 students, approximately 30% travelled by car, 30% walked and 20% used public transport to travel to school (the travel habits of 20% could not be accurately characterised). Among secondary school students, approximately 50% used public transport, 15–20% travelled by car and 15–20% walked. Among those who walked or used public transport, the median times spent walking were 10–15 min and 5 min per trip, respectively.Conclusions: While there is little scope to increase the prevalence of active transport among secondary school students, there is potential to do so among primary school students. Primary school students who replace travelling to and from school by car with walking will experience an increase in activity energy expenditure of up to 10% and those who change to public transport will experience an increase in activity energy expenditure of up to 3%.

Download full-text


Available from: Louise L Hardy, Dec 17, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is little empirical evidence of the impact of transition from primary to secondary school on obesity-related risk behaviour. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of a change of school system on physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour in pre-early adolescents. Fifteen schools in Victoria, Australia were recruited at random from the bottom two strata of a five level socio-economic scale. In nine schools, students in year 6 primary school transitioned to a different school for year 7 secondary school, while in six schools (combined primary-secondary), students remained in the same school environment from year 6 to year 7. Time 1 (T1) measures were collected from students (N=245) in year 6 (age 11-13). Time 2 (T2) data were collected from 243 (99%) of the original student cohort when in year 7. PA and sedentary behaviour data were collected objectively (via ActiGraph accelerometer) and subjectively (via child self-report recall questionnaire). School environment data were collected via school staff survey. Change of behaviour analyses were conducted longitudinally i) for all students and ii) by change/no change of school. Mixed model regression analysis tested for behavioural interaction effects of changing/not changing school. Sixty-three percent (N=152) changed schools from T1 to T2. Across all students we observed declines in average daily moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) (-4 min) and light PA (-23 min), and increases in average daily sedentary behaviour (16 min), weekday leisure screen time (17 min) and weekday homework screen time (25 min), all P<0.05. Compared to students who remained in the same school environment, students who changed school reported a greater reduction in PA intensity at recess and lunch, less likelihood to cycle to/from school, greater increase in weekday (41 mins) and weekend (45 mins) leisure screen time (P<0.05) and greater encouragement to participate in sport. School staff surveys identified that sport participation encouragement was greater in primary and combined primary-secondary than secondary schools (P<0.05). Transitioning from primary to secondary school negatively impacts on children's PA and sedentary behaviour, and has further compounding effects on behaviour type by changing school environments.
    International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 05/2015; 12(1):59. DOI:10.1186/s12966-015-0218-0 · 3.68 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Active transportation to school is a method by which youth can build physical activity into their daily routines. We examined correlates of active transportation to school at both individual- (characteristics of the individual and family) and area- (school and neighborhood) levels amongst youth living within 1 mile (1.6 km) of their school. METHODS: Using the 2009/10 Canadian Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC) survey, we selected records of students (n = 3 997) from 161 schools that resided in an urban setting and lived within 1 mile from their school. Student records were compiled from: (1) individual-level HBSC student questionnaires; (2) area-level administrator (school) questionnaires; and (3) area-level geographic information system data sources. The outcome, active transportation to school, was determined via a questionnaire item describing the method of transportation that individual students normally use to get to school. Analyses focused on factors at multiple levels that potentially contribute to student decisions to engage in active transportation. Multi-level logistic regression analyses were employed. RESULTS: Approximately 18% of the variance in active transportation was accounted for at the area-level. Several individual and family characteristics were associated with engagement in active transportation to school including female gender (RR vs. males = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.80-0.91), having >=2 cars in the household (RR vs. no cars = 0.87, 0.74-0.97), and family socioeconomic status (RR for 'not well off' vs. 'very well off' = 1.14, 1.01-1.26). Neighborhood characteristics most strongly related to active transportation were: the length of roads in the 1 km buffer (RR in quartile 4 vs. quartile 1 = 1.23, 1.00-1.42), the amount of litter in the neighborhood (RR for 'major problem' vs. 'no problem' = 1.47, 1.16-1.57), and relatively hot climates (RR in quartile 4 vs. quartile 1 = 1.33 CI, 1.05-1.53). CONCLUSION: Engagement in active transportation to school was related to multiple factors at multiple levels. We identified gender, perception of residential neighborhood safety, the percentage of streets with sidewalks, and the total length of roads as the most important correlates of active transportation to school.
    International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 10/2012; 9(1):124. DOI:10.1186/1479-5868-9-124 · 3.68 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: School travel mode and parenting practices have been associated with children's physical activity (PA). The current study sought to examine whether PA parenting practices differ by school travel mode and whether school travel mode and PA parenting practices are associated with PA. 469 children (aged 9-11) wore accelerometers from which mean weekday and after-school (3.30 to 8.30 pm) minutes of moderate-to-vigorous intensity PA (MVPA) and counts per minute (CPM) were derived. Mode of travel to and from school (passive vs. active) and PA parenting practices (maternal and paternal logistic support and modelling behaviour) were child-reported. Children engaged in an average of 59.7 minutes of MVPA per weekday. Active travel to school by girls was associated with 5.9 more minutes of MVPA per day compared with those who travelled to school passively (p = 0.004). After-school CPM and MVPA did not differ by school travel mode. There was no evidence that physical activity parenting practices were associated with school travel mode. For girls, encouraging active travel to school is likely to be important for overall PA. Further formative research may be warranted to understand how both parental logistic support and active travel decisions are operationalized in families as a means of understanding how to promote increased PA among pre-adolescent children.
    BMC Public Health 04/2014; 14(1):370. DOI:10.1186/1471-2458-14-370 · 2.32 Impact Factor