| Literature DB >> 25928443 |
Fabian Czerwinski1, Emily Finne2, Petra Kolip3, Jens Bucksch4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Young people spend half of their days in school, but evidence concerning the influence of school environment on the physical activity (PA) of pupils is still inconsistent. A better understanding of potential correlates of PA on the school-level and their possible interaction with individual aspects is needed to improve the development of more effective interventions.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25928443 PMCID: PMC4423129 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-015-1715-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Descriptive characteristics of the sample (%, weighted counts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||||||
| 11 | Boys | 42.8% | 6.9% | 35.4% | 57.7% | 4.62 | 842 | 1650 |
| Girls | 41.3% | 11.0% | 39.0% | 50.0% | 4.32 | 808 | ||
| 13 | Boys | 42.6% | 5.2% | 33.3% | 61.5% | 4.41 | 789 | 1591 |
| Girls | 45.5% | 8.2% | 38.2% | 53.5% | 3.99 | 802 | ||
| 15 | Boys | 42.4% | 7.1% | 36.9% | 56.1% | 3.96 | 715 | 1588 |
| Girls | 47.1% | 8.2% | 38.2% | 53.7% | 3.47 | 873 | ||
| Total | Boys | 42.6% | 6.4% | 35.1% | 58.5% | 4.36 | 2346 | 4829 |
| Girls | 44.7% | 9.1% | 38.4% | 52.5% | 3.91 | 2483 | ||
| Both | 43.7% | 7.8% | 36.9% | 55.4% | 4.13 | 4829 | ||
*moderate-to-vigorous physical activity.
Results of the empty models
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| V1: Variance at level 1 (students) | 3.505327 | 3.681997 | 3.637761 |
| V2: Variance at level 2 (schools) | .0791812 | .0910364 | .0905945 |
| ICCa (V2/ V1 + V2) | .0221 (2.21%) | .0241 (2.41%) | .0243 (2.43%) |
| LR-Testb (chi2; p) | 7.25; p=.007 | 5.97; p=.015 | 21.49; p<.001 |
a: ICC= Intra-Class-Coefficient.
b: LR-Test= Likelihood-Ratio-Test.
Results of gender-specific multivariate regression models predicting MVPA: unstandardized regression coefficients from two level models including predictors at the individual level (students) and school/contextual level (school administrators)
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Level | N (students; schools) | (1464; 164) | (1295; 154) | ||
| Constant | 3.47 | 3.67 | 3.56 | 3.49 | |
| Demographic | Age 11 | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Age 13 |
| -.23 |
| -.24 | |
| Age 15 |
|
|
|
| |
| Migrational background of parents | |||||
| none | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| one parent | -.04 | -.02 | .07 | .06 | |
| both parents |
|
| .21 | .17 | |
| FAS low | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | |
| FAS medium | -.13 | -.12 | .22 | .20 | |
| FAS high | .29 | .29 | .24 | .23 | |
| Behavioral | Self-rated health >=good |
|
|
|
|
| Daily breakfast | .02 | .05 | -.01 | .01 | |
| Fruit consumption >= 5 d/week |
|
|
|
| |
| Vegetables consump. >= 5 d/week |
|
|
|
| |
| Softdrink consumption >= 5 d/week | -.09 | -.11 |
|
| |
| Biological | BMI – healthy range | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. | Ref. |
| Underweight | -.00 | -.01 | .06 | .02 | |
| Overweight /Obesity |
|
|
|
| |
| Environmental | Perceived Living Area: housing problems (ref.: “no”) |
|
| -.07 | -.06 |
| School type “Gymnasium” vs. other (ref: “other”) |
| -.09 | |||
| Focus on health (general)a | -.03 | .05 | |||
| Sport as area of health-promotion |
| -.17 | |||
| Swimming pool | .03 |
| |||
| Football ground |
| .09 | |||
| Activity-enhancing schoolyard | .08 | .19 | |||
| Playground | -.07 | -.02 | |||
| Skater area | -.17 | .21 | |||
| Sporting ground | -.09 | .25 | |||
| Track | -.05 | -.30 | |||
| Relaxing room | -.07 | -.15 | |||
| Structures accessible after school | -.03 | -.05 | |||
| R2 (proportional error-reduction) | 12.43% | 13.69% | 13.32% | 14.30% | |
| LR-Testb (M3 vs. M1 & M4 vs. M2) | 16.55 (p=.17) | 11.73 (p=.47) | |||
*p<.05 **p<.01 Significant regression coefficients are in bold fonts.
a: the reference category is “no” for all following variables.
b: Likelihood-Ratio-Test.
M1: Model with individual-level variables only for girls.
M2: Model with individual-level variables only for boys.
M3: Model with individual-level and school-level variables for girls.
M4: Model with individual-level and school-level variables for boys.
Random-slope-models
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|
| N (students; schools) | (1464; 164) | (1295; 154) |
| Variable | (LR-Testa; p) | |
| Age | 4.05 (0.13) | 0.00 (1) |
| BMI | 0.69 (0.71) | - b |
| Migration background parent(s) | 0.10 (0.95) | - b |
| Self-rated health >=good | 1.28 (0.53) | - b |
| Fruit consumption >= 5 d/week | 0.04 (0.98) | 0.72 (0.70) |
| Vegetables consump. >= 5 d/week | - b | - b |
| Softdrink consumption >= 5 d/week | - c | 2.12 (0.35) |
| Living Area: Run-down houses | 0.05 (0.97) | - c |
a: Likelihood-Ratio-Test.
b: mixed models not nested.
c: not tested due to former results (see Table 3).