| Literature DB >> 34090437 |
F Rodríguez-Rodríguez1, P Gálvez-Fernández2, F J Huertas-Delgado3, M J Aranda-Balboa4, R G Saucedo-Araujo4, M Herrador-Colmenero4,3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Independent mobility (IM) provides young people with many opportunities to increase their autonomy and physical activity (PA). This study aimed to analyse whether the parent's PA, active commuting to work and sociodemographic factors serve as predictors of IM to school in children and adolescents.Entities:
Keywords: Active behaviour; Active transport; Autonomy; Family; Schoolchildren; Youth
Year: 2021 PMID: 34090437 PMCID: PMC8180041 DOI: 10.1186/s12942-021-00280-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Health Geogr ISSN: 1476-072X Impact factor: 3.918
Fig. 1Flow chart of the participants
Sociodemographic factors, mode of commuting, and PA between mothers and fathers
| Overall (n = 684) | Mothers (n = 361) | Fathers (n = 323) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | (%) | N | (%) | N | (%) | ||
| Sociodemographic factors | |||||||
| Age (Mean ± SD) | 43.4 | ± 6.5 | 42.7 | ± 6.5 | 45.7 | ± 6.0 | 0.094 |
| Educational level | |||||||
| Low-medium education | 300 | (45.9) | 125 | (35.1) | 175 | (58.7) | < 0.001 |
| Higher education | 354 | (54.1) | 231 | (64.9) | 123 | (41.3) | |
| Salary/month | |||||||
| < 1000 € | 212 | (55.9) | 159 | (60.5) | 53 | (45.7) | 0.004 |
| ≥ 1000 € | 167 | (44.1) | 104 | (39.5) | 63 | (54.3) | |
| Car availability | |||||||
| None | 123 | (21.4) | 36 | (11.5) | 87 | (33.3) | < 0.001 |
| One or more | 451 | (78.6) | 278 | (88.5) | 173 | (66.5) | |
| Family affluencea | |||||||
| Medium | 18 | (4.7) | 14 | (4.8) | 4 | (4.3) | 0.608 |
| High | 363 | (95.3) | 275 | (95.2) | 88 | (95.7) | |
| Distance of commuting to work | |||||||
| < 1 km | 73 | (16.6) | 46 | (19.1) | 27 | (11.9) | 0.021 |
| ≥ 1 km | 395 | (84.4) | 195 | (80.9) | 200 | (88.1) | |
| Recommendation for MVPA | |||||||
| < 150 min in MVPA | 195 | (37.6) | 93 | (29.9) | 102 | (49.0) | < 0.001 |
| ≥ 150 min in MVPA | 324 | (62.4) | 218 | (70.1) | 106 | (51.0) | < 0.001 |
| Mode of commuting | |||||||
| Active commuting to work | 250 | (36.7) | 137 | (38.0) | 113 | (35.2) | 0.254 |
| Passive commuting to work | 432 | (63.3) | 224 | (62.0) | 208 | (64.8) | |
MVPA moderate-vigorous physical activity, SD standard deviation
aNo low level in Family affluence scale was found
Sociodemographic factors, mode of commuting, distance and accompaniment to school between children and adolescents
| Overall (n = 684) | Children (n = 438) | Adolescents (n = 246) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | (%) | N | (%) | N | (%) | ||
| Sociodemographic factors | |||||||
| Age (Mean ± SD) | 11.3 ± 2.7 | 9.7 ± 1.7 | 14.0 ± 1.7 | < 0.001a | |||
| Gender | |||||||
| Girls | 386 | (56.4) | 243 | (55.5) | 143 | (58.1) | 0.521 |
| Boys | 298 | (43.6) | 195 | (44.5) | 103 | (41.9) | |
| Mode of commuting (n = 673) | |||||||
| Active | 263 | (39.1) | 169 | (39.0) | 94 | (39.2) | 0.518 |
| Passive | 410 | (60.9) | 264 | (61.0) | 146 | (60.8) | |
| Distance to school (n = 684) | |||||||
| < 1 km | 477 | (69.7) | 275 | (62.8) | 202 | (82.1) | < 0.001a |
| ≥ 1 km | 207 | (30.3) | 163 | (37.2) | 44 | (17.9) | |
| Accompaniment to school (n = 647) | |||||||
| IM | 299 | (46.2) | 176 | (40.2) | 123 | (58.9) | < 0.001a |
| Accompanied | 348 | (53.8) | 262 | (59.8) | 86 | (41.1) | |
SD standard deviation
ap < 0.001
Fig. 2Association between the parents’ sociodemographic, PA, and mode of commuting to work factors and independent mobility in children (A) and adolescents (B). The reference variable in each model is the opposite category shown in Table 1
Sociodemographic, PA and mode of commuting factors of parents as predictors of IM in children
| Models | Predictors | OR | 95% CI | R2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | No car availability | 2.422 | 11.26 | (1.32–95.85) | 0.027 | 0.058 |
| Model 2 | Distance to work < 1 km | 0.726 | 2.07 | (1.14–3.74) | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Model 3 | Distance to work < 1 km | 0.776 | 2.17 | (1.10–4.28) | 0.025 | 0.026 |
B: B value; OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval; R2: Nagelkerke correlation
Model 1: Sociodemographic factors only (i.e., age, educational level, salary/month, car availability, and family affluence scale II)
Model 2: Physical activity and mode of commuting to work factors only (Active or passive commuting to work, distance of commuting to work, and complied to 150-min MVPA)
Model 3: Combination of all the factors, Sociodemographic, physical activity and mode of commuting
Sociodemographic, PA and mode of commuting factors of parents as predictors of IM in adolescents
| Models | Predictors | OR | 95% CI | R2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Mother salary/month < 1.000 € | 1.821 | 6.18 | (1.77–21.55) | 0.004 | 0.197 |
| Model 2 | Mother passive commuting to work | 0.726 | 2.47 | (1.02–5.99) | 0.045 | 0.038 |
| Model 3 | No car availability | 1.876 | 6.53 | (2.23–19.08) | 0.001 | 0.173 |
B B value, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, R Nagelkerke correlation
Model 1: Sociodemographic factors only (i.e., age, educational level, salary/month, car availability, and family affluence scale II)
Model 2: Physical activity and mode of commuting to work factors only (Active or passive commuting to work, distance of commuting to work, and complied to 150-min MVPA)
Model 3: Combination of all the factors, Sociodemographic, physical activity and mode of commuting