Jordan A Carlson1, Jasper Schipperijn2, Jacqueline Kerr3, Brian E Saelens4, Loki Natarajan3, Lawrence D Frank5, Karen Glanz6, Terry L Conway3, Jim E Chapman7, Kelli L Cain3, James F Sallis3. 1. Center for Children's Healthy Lifestyles and Nutrition, Children's Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Missouri; jacarlson@cmh.edu. 2. Department of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark; 3. Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California San Diego, San Diego, California; 4. Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington & Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center, Seattle, Washington; 5. School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; 6. Perelman School of Medicine and School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and. 7. Urban Design 4 Health, Rochester, New York.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare adolescents' physical activity at home, near home, at school, near school, and at other locations. METHODS: Adolescents (N = 549) were ages 12 to 16 years (49.9% girls, 31.3% nonwhite or Hispanic) from 447 census block groups in 2 US regions. Accelerometers and Global Positioning System devices assessed minutes of and proportion of time spent in moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in each of the 5 locations. Mixed-effects regression compared MVPA across locations and demographic factors. RESULTS: Forty-two percent of adolescents' overall MVPA occurred at school, 18.7% at home, 18.3% in other (nonhome, nonschool) locations, and 20.6% near home or school. Youth had 10 more minutes (30% more) of overall MVPA on school days than on nonschool days. However, the percentage of location time spent in MVPA was lowest at school (4.8% on school days) and highest near home and near school (9.5%-10.4%). Girls had 2.6 to 5.5 fewer minutes per day of MVPA than boys in all locations except near school. CONCLUSIONS: Although a majority of adolescents' physical activity occurred at school, the low proportion of active time relative to the large amount of time spent at school suggests potential for increasing school-based activity. Increasing time spent in the neighborhood appears promising for increasing overall physical activity, because a high proportion of neighborhood time was active. Increasing youth physical activity to support metabolic health requires strategies for increasing use of physical activity-supportive locations (eg, neighborhoods) and environmental and program improvements in unsupportive locations (eg, schools, homes).
OBJECTIVES: To compare adolescents' physical activity at home, near home, at school, near school, and at other locations. METHODS: Adolescents (N = 549) were ages 12 to 16 years (49.9% girls, 31.3% nonwhite or Hispanic) from 447 census block groups in 2 US regions. Accelerometers and Global Positioning System devices assessed minutes of and proportion of time spent in moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) in each of the 5 locations. Mixed-effects regression compared MVPA across locations and demographic factors. RESULTS: Forty-two percent of adolescents' overall MVPA occurred at school, 18.7% at home, 18.3% in other (nonhome, nonschool) locations, and 20.6% near home or school. Youth had 10 more minutes (30% more) of overall MVPA on school days than on nonschool days. However, the percentage of location time spent in MVPA was lowest at school (4.8% on school days) and highest near home and near school (9.5%-10.4%). Girls had 2.6 to 5.5 fewer minutes per day of MVPA than boys in all locations except near school. CONCLUSIONS: Although a majority of adolescents' physical activity occurred at school, the low proportion of active time relative to the large amount of time spent at school suggests potential for increasing school-based activity. Increasing time spent in the neighborhood appears promising for increasing overall physical activity, because a high proportion of neighborhood time was active. Increasing youth physical activity to support metabolic health requires strategies for increasing use of physical activity-supportive locations (eg, neighborhoods) and environmental and program improvements in unsupportive locations (eg, schools, homes).
Authors: Russell R Pate; Michael G Davis; Thomas N Robinson; Elaine J Stone; Thomas L McKenzie; Judith C Young Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-08-14 Impact factor: 29.690
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: 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: Andrew P Jones; Emma G Coombes; Simon J Griffin; Esther Mf van Sluijs Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2009-07-17 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Carolina M Bejarano; Jordan A Carlson; Christopher C Cushing; Jacqueline Kerr; Brian E Saelens; Lawrence D Frank; Karen Glanz; Kelli L Cain; Terry L Conway; James F Sallis Journal: Health Place Date: 2019-02-10 Impact factor: 4.078
Authors: Katelyn M Holliday; Annie Green Howard; Michael Emch; Daniel A Rodríguez; Wayne D Rosamond; Kelly R Evenson Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Kelsey B Borner; Tarrah B Mitchell; Jordan A Carlson; Jacqueline Kerr; Brian E Saelens; Jasper Schipperijn; Lawrence D Frank; Terry L Conway; Karen Glanz; Jim E Chapman; Kelli L Cain; James F Sallis Journal: J Transp Health Date: 2018-06-08
Authors: Kelli L Cain; Kavita A Gavand; Terry L Conway; Carrie M Geremia; Rachel A Millstein; Lawrence D Frank; Brian E Saelens; Marc A Adams; Karen Glanz; Abby C King; James F Sallis Journal: J Transp Health Date: 2017-05-26