| Literature DB >> 34940390 |
Sara Scrimin1, Marta Peruzza1, Libera Ylenia Mastromatteo1, Elisabetta Patron2.
Abstract
This study examines the associations between physical and emotional well-being and classroom climate, cardiac vagal response, and body mass index (BMI) in a sample of 6- to-8-year-olds. Specifically, we expected a direct link between classroom climate, vagal withdrawal, BMI and children's physical and emotional comfort. Furthermore, we explored whether these individual and environmental characteristics influenced well-being in an interactive fashion. Participants were 142 (63 boys, 44%) first and second graders living in the North of Italy who were interviewed on their emotional and physical comfort. Heart rate and a measure of vagal influence on the heart (cardiac vagal tone) were recorded at rest and during an oral academic test. Height and weight were collected. Classroom climate was positively linked with physical well-being, whereas emotional well-being was negatively related with BMI. In addition, an inverted U-shaped effect of cardiac vagal withdrawal (i.e., cardiac vagal tone during stress minus resting vagal tone) on emotional well-being was found. Two regression models highlighted the role played by BMI when interacting with vagal withdrawal in predicting children's physical and emotional well-being. The interplay between BMI and cardiac vagal withdrawal played an important role in primary school children's well-being. From a clinical perspective, preventive training to improve autonomic regulation in concert with interventions promoting healthy eating attitudes might be critical for supporting primary school children's emotional and physical health.Entities:
Keywords: body mass index; classroom climate; heart rate variability; physiological regulation; vagal withdrawal; well-being
Year: 2021 PMID: 34940390 PMCID: PMC8700215 DOI: 10.3390/ejihpe11040112
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Investig Health Psychol Educ ISSN: 2174-8144
Descriptive statistics and correlations and for all study variables (N = 142).
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Range | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Physical Comfort | 0.283 ** | 0.186 * | −0.066 | −0.077 | 0.090 | −0.031 | 3.91 (0.77) | 1.2–5 |
| 2. Emotional Comfort | 0.146 | 0.078 | −0.219 ** | −0.021 | −0.065 | 3.86 (0.74) | 2–5 | |
| 3. Classroom Climate a | 0.084 | −0.059 | −0.214 * | 0.169 * | 1.44 (0.22) | 0–1.61 | ||
| 4. rMSSD change | −0.043 | −0.212 * | 0.076 | −7.93 (24.61) | −88.80–107.70 | |||
| 5. zBMI | 0.151 | −0.019 | 0.08 (0.92) | −2.10–3.81 d | ||||
| 6. Age b | −0.031 | 6.82 (0.71) | 6–8 | |||||
| 7. Gender c | 63 (44%) boys |
Note. a The variable has been log transformed to guarantee a good distribution; b Age is expressed in years; c 1 = male, 2 = female. rMSSD = square root of the mean squared differences of successive heart periods; d overweight from +1.04 to 1.64 and obese >1.64 obese. * p < 0.01; ** p < 0.001.
Three best fitting linear regression models for variables predicting children’s physical and emotional comfort.
| Panel A: Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Physical Comfort | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Predictor |
| η2p | |
| rMSSD change | −0.036 (0.017) * | 0.033 | 0.002 |
| Classroom Climate | 0.694 (0.300) * | 0.023 | 0.040 |
| zBMI | −0.005 (0.023) | 0.825 | 0.007 |
| rMSSD change x zBMI | 0.002 (0.009) * | 0.038 | 0.033 |
| Total R2 a | 0.15 | ||
| N | 138 | ||
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
|
| Gender b | −0.237 (0.128) | 0.066 | 0.026 |
| rMSSD change | −0.036 (0.017) * | 0.031 | 0.011 |
| Classroom Climate | 3.138 (1.230) * | 0.012 | 0.029 |
| zBMI | 0.164 (0.100) | 0.102 | 0.064 |
| rMSSD change x zBMI | 0.002 (0.009) * | 0.018 | 0.043 |
| Classroom Climate x zBMI | −0.155(0.071) * | 0.032 | 0.036 |
| Total R2 a | 0.15 | ||
| N | 139 | ||
Note: a Unstandardized coefficient. b Gender coded 1 = male and 2 = female. * p < 0.01.
Figure 1Interaction effect of rMSSD change and BMI on physical comfort (N = 130). Note. The Johnson–Neyman technique identified that rMSSD change had a significant effect on physical well-being only when zBMI was lower than −2.51, that is, when children were in the underweight range, and higher than 3.82 (not applicable to our sample), that is, when children were in the obese range.
Figure 2Interaction effects of rMSSD change with BMI Panel (A) and of satisfaction with classroom climate with BMI Panel (B) on emotional comfort (N = 130). Note. Panel (A). The Johnson–Neyman technique identified that rMSSD change had a significant effect on emotional well-being for values of zBMI lower than −3.65 (not applicable to our sample) and higher than −2.15, hence being within a normal range. Panel (B). The Johnson–Neyman technique identified that satisfaction with classroom climate had a significant effect on emotional well-being for values of zBMI lower than −2.57, that is, between thinness and underweightness, and higher than 5.84 (the latter is not applicable to our sample).