Katy P Garnham-Lee1, Catherine L Falconer2, Lauren B Sherar1,3, Ian M Taylor1. 1. National Centre for Sport and Exercise Medicine; School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire LE11 3TU, UK. 2. The NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Unit in Nutrition, Diet and Lifestyle, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TH, UK. 3. NIHR Leicester-Loughborough Diet, Lifestyle and Physical Activity Biomedical Research Unit, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire LE11 3TU, UK.
Abstract
Background: Distance from home to school is an important influence on the decision to use active transport (AT); however, ecological perspectives would suggest this relationship may be moderated by individual, interpersonal and environmental factors. This study investigates whether (i) gender, (ii) biological maturation, (iii) perceived family support for physical activity (PA) and (iv) multiple deprivation moderate the relationship between distance to school and AT. Methods: A total of 611 children (11-12 years old, 334 females) were recruited from schools in Leicestershire, UK. Gender, family support for PA, and AT were self-reported. Home and school postcodes were used to determine multiple deprivation and distance to school (km). Predicted age at peak height velocity was used to indicate biological maturation. Results: Logistic regressions revealed the main effects explained 40.2% of the variance in AT; however; distance to school was the only significant predictor. Further analyses revealed that distance to school had a greater negative impact on the use of AT in late-maturing (OR: 3.60, CI: 1.45-8.96), less deprived (OR: 3.54, CI: 1.17-10.72) and children with low family support of PA (OR: 0.26, CI: 0.11-0.61). Conclusions: This study provides evidence that, although distance to school might be the strongest predictor of AT, this relationship is complex.
Background: Distance from home to school is an important influence on the decision to use active transport (AT); however, ecological perspectives would suggest this relationship may be moderated by individual, interpersonal and environmental factors. This study investigates whether (i) gender, (ii) biological maturation, (iii) perceived family support for physical activity (PA) and (iv) multiple deprivation moderate the relationship between distance to school and AT. Methods: A total of 611 children (11-12 years old, 334 females) were recruited from schools in Leicestershire, UK. Gender, family support for PA, and AT were self-reported. Home and school postcodes were used to determine multiple deprivation and distance to school (km). Predicted age at peak height velocity was used to indicate biological maturation. Results: Logistic regressions revealed the main effects explained 40.2% of the variance in AT; however; distance to school was the only significant predictor. Further analyses revealed that distance to school had a greater negative impact on the use of AT in late-maturing (OR: 3.60, CI: 1.45-8.96), less deprived (OR: 3.54, CI: 1.17-10.72) and children with low family support of PA (OR: 0.26, CI: 0.11-0.61). Conclusions: This study provides evidence that, although distance to school might be the strongest predictor of AT, this relationship is complex.
Authors: Lyndal Bond; Jackie Clements; Nadine Bertalli; Tracy Evans-Whipp; Barbara J McMorris; George C Patton; John W Toumbourou; Richard F Catalano Journal: J Adolesc Date: 2005-12-01
Authors: I-Min Lee; Eric J Shiroma; Felipe Lobelo; Pekka Puska; Steven N Blair; Peter T Katzmarzyk Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-07-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Karen E Lamb; Neil S Ferguson; Yang Wang; David Ogilvie; Anne Ellaway Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2010-10-18 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Esther M F van Sluijs; Victoria A Fearne; Calum Mattocks; Chris Riddoch; Simon J Griffin; Andy Ness Journal: Prev Med Date: 2009-03-09 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Lucinda E Saunders; Judith M Green; Mark P Petticrew; Rebecca Steinbach; Helen Roberts Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-08-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Richard Larouche; Jean-Philippe Chaput; Geneviève Leduc; Charles Boyer; Priscilla Bélanger; Allana G LeBlanc; Michael M Borghese; Mark S Tremblay Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2014-05-23 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Natalie Pearson; Paula Griffiths; Esther van Sluijs; Andrew J Atkin; Kamlesh Khunti; Lauren B Sherar Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-05-02 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Paul McCrorie; Rich Mitchell; Laura Macdonald; Andrew Jones; Emma Coombes; Jasper Schipperijn; Anne Ellaway Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2020-03-06 Impact factor: 4.135