Natalie Colabianchi1, Jamie L Griffin2, Sandy J Slater3, Patrick M O'Malley2, Lloyd D Johnston2. 1. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Electronic address: colabian@umich.edu. 2. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The IOM recommends schools adopt a Whole-of-School (WOS) approach--one that is comprehensive, coordinated, and provides opportunities for students to be active before, during, and after school. This study examined, in a nationally representative sample of secondary students in the conterminous U.S., (1) the degree of implementation of a WOS approach and (2) the association between WOS implementation and student physical activity. METHODS: A WOS index--based on six school practices--was calculated using self-reported school administrator data gathered in 2010 and 2011 (N=1,031). Student-level data were obtained from nationally representative samples of eighth-, tenth-, and 12th-grade students during the same years (eighth grade, nschools=96, nstudents=3,689; tenth/12th grades, nschools=178, nstudents=4,670). Multilevel Poisson models were estimated in 2013-2014 to examine the relationship between the WOS index and self-reported physical activity. RESULTS: Few students attended schools with high WOS index scores. Middle school students attending schools with higher WOS index scores were physically active for at least 60 minutes on more days than students attending schools with lower WOS index scores (exp[β]=1.031, 95% CI=1.008, 1.054). The WOS index score was not associated with physical activity among high school students. CONCLUSIONS: This study finds that many schools are not offering the full array of practices comprising a WOS approach to physical activity, especially at the high school level. Yet, middle school students could have increased physical activity levels if schools were to implement a WOS approach to physical activity.
INTRODUCTION: The IOM recommends schools adopt a Whole-of-School (WOS) approach--one that is comprehensive, coordinated, and provides opportunities for students to be active before, during, and after school. This study examined, in a nationally representative sample of secondary students in the conterminous U.S., (1) the degree of implementation of a WOS approach and (2) the association between WOS implementation and student physical activity. METHODS: A WOS index--based on six school practices--was calculated using self-reported school administrator data gathered in 2010 and 2011 (N=1,031). Student-level data were obtained from nationally representative samples of eighth-, tenth-, and 12th-grade students during the same years (eighth grade, nschools=96, nstudents=3,689; tenth/12th grades, nschools=178, nstudents=4,670). Multilevel Poisson models were estimated in 2013-2014 to examine the relationship between the WOS index and self-reported physical activity. RESULTS: Few students attended schools with high WOS index scores. Middle school students attending schools with higher WOS index scores were physically active for at least 60 minutes on more days than students attending schools with lower WOS index scores (exp[β]=1.031, 95% CI=1.008, 1.054). The WOS index score was not associated with physical activity among high school students. CONCLUSIONS: This study finds that many schools are not offering the full array of practices comprising a WOS approach to physical activity, especially at the high school level. Yet, middle school students could have increased physical activity levels if schools were to implement a WOS approach to physical activity.
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: Catherine N Rasberry; Sarah M Lee; Leah Robin; B A Laris; Lisa A Russell; Karin K Coyle; Allison J Nihiser Journal: Prev Med Date: 2011-02-01 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: David R Bassett; Eugene C Fitzhugh; Gregory W Heath; Paul C Erwin; Ginny M Frederick; Dana L Wolff; Whitney A Welch; Aaron B Stout Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Pedro C Hallal; Lars Bo Andersen; Fiona C Bull; Regina Guthold; William Haskell; Ulf Ekelund Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-07-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Danice K Eaton; Laura Kann; Steve Kinchen; Shari Shanklin; Katherine H Flint; Joseph Hawkins; William A Harris; Richard Lowry; Tim McManus; David Chyen; Lisa Whittle; Connie Lim; Howell Wechsler Journal: MMWR Surveill Summ Date: 2012-06-08
Authors: Richard P Troiano; David Berrigan; Kevin W Dodd; Louise C Mâsse; Timothy Tilert; Margaret McDowell Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Russell R Pate; Ruth Saunders; Rod K Dishman; Cheryl Addy; Marsha Dowda; Dianne S Ward Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 5.043