Pooja S Tandon1, Brian E Saelens2, Dimitri A Christakis2. 1. Center for Child Health, Behavior, and Development, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; and Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington pooja@uw.edu. 2. Center for Child Health, Behavior, and Development, Seattle Children's Research Institute, Seattle, Washington; and Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Physical activity (PA) is important for children's health and development, yet preschoolers are not meeting PA recommendations. The objective of this study was to examine different PA opportunities at child care and how variation in indoor versus outdoor and free versus teacher-led opportunities relate to children's PA. METHODS: An observational study of 98 children (mean age 4.5 years, 49% girls) from 10 child care centers. Classrooms were observed for at least 4 full days per center (total 50 days) to categorize time into (1) not an active play opportunity (APO); (2) naptime; (3) APO, outdoor free play; (4) APO, outdoor teacher-led; (5) APO, indoor free play; and (6) APO, indoor teacher-led. Children wore accelerometers during observations. Linear regression models examined the influence of APO categories on moderate-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and sedentary time. RESULTS: Children's activity was 73% sedentary, 13% light, and 14% MVPA. For 88% of time children did not have APOs, including 26% time as naptime. On average, 48 minutes per day were APOs (41% sedentary, 18% light, and 41% MVPA), 33 minutes per day were outdoors. The most frequent APO was outdoor free play (8% of time); outdoor teacher-led time was <1%. Children were more active and less sedentary outdoors versus indoors and during the child-initiated APOs (indoors and outdoors) versus teacher-led APOs. CONCLUSIONS: Preschoolers were presented with significantly fewer than recommended opportunities for PA at child care. More APOs are needed for children to meet recommendations, particularly those that encourage more outdoor time, more teacher-led and child-initiated active play, and flexibility in naptime for preschoolers.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Physical activity (PA) is important for children's health and development, yet preschoolers are not meeting PA recommendations. The objective of this study was to examine different PA opportunities at child care and how variation in indoor versus outdoor and free versus teacher-led opportunities relate to children's PA. METHODS: An observational study of 98 children (mean age 4.5 years, 49% girls) from 10 child care centers. Classrooms were observed for at least 4 full days per center (total 50 days) to categorize time into (1) not an active play opportunity (APO); (2) naptime; (3) APO, outdoor free play; (4) APO, outdoor teacher-led; (5) APO, indoor free play; and (6) APO, indoor teacher-led. Children wore accelerometers during observations. Linear regression models examined the influence of APO categories on moderate-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and sedentary time. RESULTS:Children's activity was 73% sedentary, 13% light, and 14% MVPA. For 88% of time children did not have APOs, including 26% time as naptime. On average, 48 minutes per day were APOs (41% sedentary, 18% light, and 41% MVPA), 33 minutes per day were outdoors. The most frequent APO was outdoor free play (8% of time); outdoor teacher-led time was <1%. Children were more active and less sedentary outdoors versus indoors and during the child-initiated APOs (indoors and outdoors) versus teacher-led APOs. CONCLUSIONS: Preschoolers were presented with significantly fewer than recommended opportunities for PA at child care. More APOs are needed for children to meet recommendations, particularly those that encourage more outdoor time, more teacher-led and child-initiated active play, and flexibility in naptime for preschoolers.
Authors: William B Strong; Robert M Malina; Cameron J R Blimkie; Stephen R Daniels; Rodney K Dishman; Bernard Gutin; Albert C Hergenroeder; Aviva Must; Patricia A Nixon; James M Pivarnik; Thomas Rowland; Stewart Trost; François Trudeau Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Kristen A Copeland; Susan N Sherman; Cassandra A Kendeigh; Heidi J Kalkwarf; Brian E Saelens Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2012-01-04 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Angela C King; Kathryn N Parkinson; Ashley J Adamson; Lilian Murray; Herve Besson; John J Reilly; Laura Basterfield Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2010-07-22 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Lisa J Willenberg; Rosie Ashbolt; Dionne Holland; Lisa Gibbs; Colin MacDougall; Jan Garrard; Julie B Green; Elizabeth Waters Journal: J Sci Med Sport Date: 2009-06-23 Impact factor: 4.319
Authors: Sara E Benjamin; Angie Cradock; Elizabeth M Walker; Meghan Slining; Matthew W Gillman Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2008-05-30 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Hayley Christian; Leanne Lester; Stewart G Trost; Georgina Trapp; Jasper Schipperijn; Bryan Boruff; Clover Maitland; Zakia Jeemi; Michael Rosenberg; Paul Barber; Harry Eslick Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2019-08-31 Impact factor: 3.380
Authors: Kelsey A Vercammen; Johannah M Frelier; Mary Kathryn Poole; Erica L Kenney Journal: J Public Health (Oxf) Date: 2020-05-26 Impact factor: 2.341