Kelsey B Borner1, Tarrah B Mitchell2, Jordan A Carlson3, Jacqueline Kerr4, Brian E Saelens5, Jasper Schipperijn6, Lawrence D Frank7, Terry L Conway4, Karen Glanz8, Jim E Chapman9, Kelli L Cain4, James F Sallis4. 1. Children's National Medical Center, Washington, DC. 2. University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA. 3. Children's Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Missouri USA. 4. University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California USA. 5. Seattle Children's Research Institute and the University of Washington, Seattle, Washington USA. 6. University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. 7. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia Canada. 8. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA. 9. Urban Design 4 Health, Rochester New York USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate whether adolescents cluster into profiles based on where they accumulate moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), if overall MVPA differs across profiles, and if walking to school and participant and neighborhood characteristics explain profile membership. METHODS: Adolescents (N=528; mean age=14.12±1.44; 50% girls) wore accelerometers and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) trackers for 3.9±1.5 days to assess MVPA minutes in five locations: at home, at school, in home neighborhood, in school neighborhood, and other. Walking to school and participant characteristics were assessed by questionnaire, and neighborhood environment by Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Latent profile analysis (LPA) was used to identify profiles/groups of participants based on accumulation of physical activity across the five locations. Mixed-effects regression tested differences in overall MVPA, walking to school, and other characteristics across profiles. RESULTS: Four initial profiles emerged: one Insufficiently Active profile and three "Active" profiles (Active Around School, Active Home Neighborhood, and Active Other Locations). The Insufficiently Active profile emerging from the first LPA (90% of participants) was further separated into four profiles in a second LPA: Insufficiently Active, and three additional "Active" profiles (Moderately-Active Around School, Moderately-Active Home Neighborhood, and Active At Home). Those in the six Active profiles had more overall MVPA (41.1-92.7 minutes/day) than those in the two Insufficiently Active profiles (34.5-38.3 minutes/day). Variables that differed across profiles included walking to school, sports/athletic ability, and neighborhood walkability. CONCLUSIONS: Although most participants did not meet the MVPA guideline, the six Active profiles showed the places in which many adolescents were able to achieve the 60-minute/day guideline. The home and school neighborhood (partly through walking to school), "other" locations, and to a lesser extent the home, appeared to be key sources for physical activity that distinguished active from insufficiently active adolescents. Finding the right match between the individual and physical activity source/location may be a promising strategy for increasing active travel and MVPA in adolescents.
PURPOSE: To investigate whether adolescents cluster into profiles based on where they accumulate moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), if overall MVPA differs across profiles, and if walking to school and participant and neighborhood characteristics explain profile membership. METHODS: Adolescents (N=528; mean age=14.12±1.44; 50% girls) wore accelerometers and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) trackers for 3.9±1.5 days to assess MVPA minutes in five locations: at home, at school, in home neighborhood, in school neighborhood, and other. Walking to school and participant characteristics were assessed by questionnaire, and neighborhood environment by Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Latent profile analysis (LPA) was used to identify profiles/groups of participants based on accumulation of physical activity across the five locations. Mixed-effects regression tested differences in overall MVPA, walking to school, and other characteristics across profiles. RESULTS: Four initial profiles emerged: one Insufficiently Active profile and three "Active" profiles (Active Around School, Active Home Neighborhood, and Active Other Locations). The Insufficiently Active profile emerging from the first LPA (90% of participants) was further separated into four profiles in a second LPA: Insufficiently Active, and three additional "Active" profiles (Moderately-Active Around School, Moderately-Active Home Neighborhood, and Active At Home). Those in the six Active profiles had more overall MVPA (41.1-92.7 minutes/day) than those in the two Insufficiently Active profiles (34.5-38.3 minutes/day). Variables that differed across profiles included walking to school, sports/athletic ability, and neighborhood walkability. CONCLUSIONS: Although most participants did not meet the MVPA guideline, the six Active profiles showed the places in which many adolescents were able to achieve the 60-minute/day guideline. The home and school neighborhood (partly through walking to school), "other" locations, and to a lesser extent the home, appeared to be key sources for physical activity that distinguished active from insufficiently active adolescents. Finding the right match between the individual and physical activity source/location may be a promising strategy for increasing active travel and MVPA in adolescents.
Entities:
Keywords:
accelerometry; built environment; global positioning systems
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: 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: Anna Timperio; Kylie Ball; Jo Salmon; Rebecca Roberts; Billie Giles-Corti; Dianne Simmons; Louise A Baur; David Crawford Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 5.043
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: Daheia J Barr-Anderson; Deborah R Young; James F Sallis; Dianne R Neumark-Sztainer; Joel Gittelsohn; Larry Webber; Ruth Saunders; Stuart Cohen; Jared B Jobe Journal: Prev Med Date: 2007-02-15 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Venurs Hy Loh; Jenny Veitch; Jo Salmon; Ester Cerin; Suzanne Mavoa; Karen Villanueva; Anna Timperio Journal: Health Place Date: 2020-04-02 Impact factor: 4.931
Authors: Kelli L Cain; Jo Salmon; Terry L Conway; Ester Cerin; Erica Hinckson; Josef Mitáš; Jasper Schipperijn; Lawrence D Frank; Ranjit Mohan Anjana; Anthony Barnett; Jan Dygrýn; Mohammed Zakiul Islam; Javier Molina-García; Mika Moran; Wan Abdul Manan Wan Muda; Adewale L Oyeyemi; Rodrigo Reis; Maria Paula Santos; Tanja Schmidt; Grant M Schofield; Anna Timperio; Delfien Van Dyck; James F Sallis Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-01-18 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Isabella Toledo Caetano; Valter Paulo Neves Miranda; Fernanda Karina Dos Santos; Paulo Roberto Dos Santos Amorim Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-07-21 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Adrian Ortega; Carolina M Bejarano; Christopher C Cushing; Vincent S Staggs; Amy E Papa; Chelsea Steel; Robin P Shook; Debra K Sullivan; Sarah C Couch; Terry L Conway; Brian E Saelens; Karen Glanz; Lawrence D Frank; Kelli L Cain; Jacqueline Kerr; Jasper Schipperijn; James F Sallis; Jordan A Carlson Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Nan Qiu; Xiaoli Gao; Xinge Zhang; Jialin Fu; Yechuang Wang; Rui Li Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-21 Impact factor: 3.390