Family circumstance, sedentary behaviour and physical activity in adolescents living in England: Project STIL

School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK. .
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity (Impact Factor: 4.11). 07/2009; 6(1):33. DOI: 10.1186/1479-5868-6-33
Source: PubMed


Identification of non-modifiable correlates of physical activity and sedentary behaviour in youth contributes to the development of effective targeted intervention strategies. The purpose of this research was to examine the relationships between family circumstances (e.g. socio-economic status, single vs. dual parent household, presence/absence of siblings) and leisure-time physical activity and sedentary behaviours in adolescents.
A total of 1171 adolescents (40% male; mean age 14.8 years) completed ecological momentary assessment diaries every 15 minutes for 3 weekdays outside of school hours and 1 weekend day. Analysed behaviours were sports/exercise, active travel, TV viewing, computer use, sedentary socialising (hanging-out, using the telephone, sitting and talking) and total sedentary behaviour. Linear regression was employed to estimate levels of association between individual family circumstance variables and each behaviour.
Compared to girls from higher socioeconomic status (SES) groups, girls from low SES groups reported higher weekend TV viewing and higher weekday total sedentary behaviour. For boys, single parent status was associated with greater total sedentary behaviour compared to those from dual parent households. Boys and girls from low socio-economic neighbourhoods reported lower participation in sports/exercise compared to those living in higher socio-economic neighbourhoods.
Associations were not consistent across behaviours or between genders. Overall, findings indicate that boys from single parent households and girls from low socio-economic families may be at increased risk of high sedentary behaviour. Those living in low socioeconomic neighbourhoods may be at increased risk of reduced participation in sports and exercise.

Download full-text


Available from: Stuart J.H. Biddle,
  • Source
    • "Quantitative studies examining the association between family structure and screen time have produced inconsistent results. Some studies report that youth from nontraditional families accumulate more screen time (Lindquist, Reynolds & Goran, 1999; Gorley, Marshall & Biddle, 2004; Quarmby & Dagkas, 2010), while others show that the relationship holds only for girls (Bagley, Salmon & Crawford, 2006; Hesketh, Crawford & Salmon, 2006; Sisson & Broyles, 2012) or boys (Gorely et al., 2009) and still other studies show null results (Salmon et al., 2005; Hardy et al., 2006). A major limitation of these studies is that they did not consider the diversity of modern families. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The family plays a central role in the development of health-related behaviors among youth. The objective of this study was to determine whether non-traditional parental structure and shared custody arrangements predict how much time youth spend watching television, using a computer recreationally, and playing video games. Participants were a nationally representative sample of Canadian youth (N = 26,068) in grades 6-10 who participated in the 2009/10 Health Behaviour in School-aged Children Survey. Screen time in youth from single parent and reconstituted families, with or without regular visitation with their non-residential parent, was compared to that of youth from traditional dual-parent families. Multiple imputation was used to account for missing data. After multiple imputation, the relative odds of being in the highest television, computer use, video game, and total screen time quartiles were not different in boys and girls from non-traditional families by comparison to boys and girls from traditional dual-parent families. In conclusion, parental structure and child custody arrangements did not have a meaningful impact on screen time among youth.
    PeerJ 06/2015; 3(Suppl 2):e1048. DOI:10.7717/peerj.1048 · 2.11 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Studies evaluating activity by EMA among children, adolescents, and adults were commonly conducted twice a year for 4 consecutive days [9, 19–22, 24, 25, 29, 30], over three extended weekends [26], or for several consecutive days [17, 23, 27, 28, 31–36]. In this last group, 50% of the studies evaluated PA at random times over 4 consecutive days: from Saturday to Tuesday-1 [17], from Friday to Monday-3 [27, 28, 31] and over 3 weekdays and 1 day over the weekend-1 [23]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the value of ecological momentary assessment in evaluating physical activity among children, adolescents, and adults. It also determines whether ecological momentary assessment fulfills the criteria of validity, reliability, objectivity, norms, and standardization applied to the tools used for the evaluation of physical activity. Methods: The EBSCO-CINHAL, Medline, PsycINFO, PubMed, and SPORTDiscuss databases were reviewed in December 2012 for articles associated with EMA. Results: Of the 20 articles examined, half (10) used electronic methods for data collection, although various methods were used, ranging from pen and paper to smartphone applications. Ten studies used objective monitoring equipment. Nineteen studies were performed over 4 days. While the validity of the EMA method was discussed in 18 studies, only four found it to be objective. In all cases, the EMA procedures were precisely documented and confirmed to be feasible. Conclusions: Ecological momentary assessment is a valid, reliable, and feasible approach to evaluate activity and sedentary behavior. Researchers should be aware that while ecological momentary assessment offers many benefits, it simultaneously imposes many limitations which should be considered when studying physical activity.
    BioMed Research International 07/2014; 2014:915172. DOI:10.1155/2014/915172 · 1.58 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The after-school period has been identified as “critical hours” [13] for young people’s PA, as it is perhaps the only period of the day during which young people can decide whether, and how, they are active. Patterns of PA during the after-school period have been shown to differ by socio-economic position with lower levels of participation in organised sports among children from lower income households [14]. Interventions to promote PA in the after-school period which can be provided for all socio-economic groups are therefore particularly worthy of attention [12,15]. "
    [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 · 2.26 Impact Factor
Show more