| Literature DB >> 35862482 |
Isabella Toledo Caetano1, Valter Paulo Neves Miranda1, Fernanda Karina Dos Santos1, Paulo Roberto Dos Santos Amorim1.
Abstract
The ecological model has been widely used to help researchers understand the multiple influences in the physical activity (PA) and in the sedentary behaviors in isolated forms. To date, few correlates concerning the behavioral groupings of PA and sedentary behaviors have been studied. In this context, this study aimed to identify movement behaviors' latent classes related to the different adolescents' PA and sedentary time expressions, as well as their associations with individual, sociodemographic, family, and environmental correlates. This is a cross-sectional study with 309 students aged between 14 and 16. Latent Class Analysis was used to identify movement behavior classes based on light PA, moderate to vigorous PA, number of steps, sedentary time, and screen time (ST). An accelerometer was used to evaluate movement behaviors. The individual, sociodemographic, family, and environmental correlates were assessed by questionnaires. Three classes were identified: Class 1, "Active and Non-Sedentary" (8.10% of the sample), Class 2, "Active and Sedentary" (28.5%), and Class 3, "Inactive and Sedentary" (63.4%). Those with low fruit intake, low aerobic fitness, stressed and whose head of the family obtained an 'elementary school' level education were, respectively, 7.17, 3.59, 3.56, and 4.40 times more likely to belong to class 3 than class 1. Those with medium and high socioeconomic status were 82% and 83% less likely to belong to class 1 than classes 2 and 3, respectively. Adolescents who perceived the neighborhoods with the best access to diversified land use, street connectivity, walking/pedaling ease, and traffic safety attributes, were 84%, 85%, 82%, and 82%, respectively less likely to belong to class 1 than class 2. It is concluded that distinct correlates can be associated with the movement behaviors classes.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35862482 PMCID: PMC9302818 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271111
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.752
Relative, absolute adjustment values, and adolescents LCA movement behavior models uncertainty degree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 2 Classes | 1712.47 | 1753.54 | 20 | 31.67 | 29.49 | 0.078 | 0.762 |
| 3 classes | 1705.71 | 1769.18 | 14 | 11.89 | 10.73 | 0.706 | 0.957 |
| 4 Classes | 1711.06 | 1796.92 | 8 | 10.75 | 9.29 | 0.846 | 0.860 |
| 5 Classes | 1720.37 | 1828.64 | 2 | 1.37 | 1.39 | 0.497 | 0.497 |
†Selected model with better adjustment values. Models with 6 classes or more presented negative degrees of freedom, so they were not presented.
AIC, Akaike Information Criterion; BIC, Bayesian Information Criterion; DF, degrees of freedom; χ2, Pearson’s chi-square test of goodness adjustment; G2, Likelihood Ratio; p-G2, Likelihood Ratio Test Statistics.
Fig 1Adolescents’ LCA model of movement behaviors.
Class 1: Active and Non-sedentary (γ: 8.10%); Class 2: Active and Sedentary (γ: 28.50%); Class 3: Inactive and Sedentary (γ: 63.40%). SB, sedentary time; PA, physical activity; MVPA, moderate to vigorous physical activity; ST, screen time. *Categorized by the 25thP percentile. ** Categorized by the 75t thP percentile. †60-minute cut-off point.
Association of individual covariates (biological, life habits, and psychological) with the adolescents’ movement behaviors LCA model.
| Class 1 / Class 2 | Class 1 / Class 3 | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Covariates |
| SE | OR | 95%CI | p-value |
| SE | OR | 95%CI | p-value | ||
|
| ||||||||||||
| Male | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| Female | -1.11 | 0.613 | 0.33 | 0.10 | 1.10 | 0.093 | 0.948 | 0.506 | 2.58 | 0.96 | 6.96 | 0.085 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| No alcohol intake | 1 | |||||||||||
| Alcohol intake | 0.468 | 0.605 | 1.60 | 0.49 | 5.23 | 0.454 | 0.913 | 0.527 | 2.49 | 0.89 | 7.00 | 0.109 |
| High fruit intake | 1 | |||||||||||
| Low fruit intake | 1.269 | 0.685 | 3.56 | 0.93 | 13.62 | 0.089 | 1.97 | 0.754 | 7.17 | 1.64 | 31.43 | 0.022 |
| High vegetables intake | 1 | |||||||||||
| Low vegetable intake | -0.0002 | 0.6 | 1.00 | 0.31 | 3.24 | 1.00 | -0.83 | 0.497 | 0.44 | 0.16 | 1.16 | 0.121 |
| Low sugars intake | 1 | |||||||||||
| High sugars intake | -1.55 | 0.938 | 0.21 | 0.03 | 1.33 | 0.123 | -0.422 | 0.34 | 0.66 | 0.34 | 1.28 | 0.239 |
| Yes job | 1 | |||||||||||
| No job | -0.147 | 0.707 | 0.86 | 0.22 | 3.45 | 0.838 | 0.209 | 0.649 | 1.23 | 0.35 | 4.40 | 0.753 |
| Active commuting† | 1 | |||||||||||
| Passive commuting | 0.193 | 0.533 | 1.21 | 0.43 | 3.45 | 0.723 | 0.352 | 0.606 | 1.42 | 0.43 | 4.66 | 0.572 |
| High CRF (50thP) | 1 | |||||||||||
| Low CRF (50thP) | 0.081 | 0.644 | 1.08 | 0.31 | 3.83 | 0.902 | 1.277 | 0.584 | 3.59 | 1.14 | 11.26 | 0.049 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| No stress | 1 | |||||||||||
| Stressed | 1.25 | 0.633 | 3.49 | 1.01 | 12.07 | 0.071 | 1.27 | 0.561 | 3.56 | 1.01 | 12.07 | 0.042 |
| Never lonely | 1 | |||||||||||
| Loneliness | -0.527 | 0.674 | 0.59 | 0.16 | 2.21 | 0.449 | -0.113 | 0.59 | 0.89 | 0.28 | 2.84 | 0.851 |
| No sadness | 1 | |||||||||||
| Yes sadness | -1.21 | 0.625 | 0.30 | 0.09 | 1.02 | 0.076 | 0.09 | 0.512 | 1.09 | 0.40 | 2.98 | 0.859 |
*Significative association.
†Reference category.
β, Multinominal regression coefficient; SE, Standard error; OR, Odds Ratio; 95%CI, 95% Confidence interval. -, values not found; SS, socioeconomic status; CRF, cardiorespiratory physical fitness.
Sociodemographic, family, and environmental covariates association with adolescent’s movement behaviors LCA model.
| Class 1 / Class 2 | Class 1 / Class 3 | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Covariates |
| SE | OR | 95%CI | p-value |
| SE | OR | 95%CI | p-value | ||
|
| ||||||||||||
| High and Medium ss | 1 | |||||||||||
| Low ss | -1.69 | 0.73 | 0.18 | 0.04 | 0.77 | 0.039 | -1.78 | 0.685 | 0.17 | 0.04 | 0.65 | 0.023 |
| Higher Education | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| High school | 0.114 | 0.402 | 1.12 | 0.51 | 2.46 | 0.783 | -0.33 | 0.709 | 0.72 | 0.18 | 2.89 | 0.963 |
| Elementary school | 0.864 | 0.454 | 2.37 | 0.97 | 5.78 | 0.094 | 1.482 | 0.652 | 4.40 | 1.23 | 15.80 | 0.05 |
| Never studied | 0.979 | 1.111 | 2.66 | 0.30 | 23.49 | 0.404 | 2.192 | 1.243 | 8.95 | 0.78 | 102.34 | 0.116 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Active MVPA | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| Insufficient Active | 1.11 | 0.909 | 4.10 | 0.69 | 24.35 | 0.147 | 1.185 | 0.854 | 3.27 | 0.61 | 17.44 | 0.051 |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Best Land use mix-diversity | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| Worst Land use mix-diversity | -3.21 | 1.814 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 1.41 | 0.102 | -2.56 | 1.8 | 0.08 | 0.00 | 2.63 | 0.179 |
| Best residential density | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| Worst residential density | -13.4 | 0.396 | 0.00 | 0.00 | - | - | -12.59 | 0.306 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | - |
| Best land use mix-access | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| Worst land use mix-access | -1.804 | 0.643 | 0.16 | 0.05 | 0.58 | 0.016 | -0.887 | 0.557 | 0.41 | 0.14 | 1.23 | 0.137 |
| Best street connectivity | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| Worst street connectivity | -1.87 | 0.76 | 0.15 | 0.03 | 0.68 | 0.03 | -1.465 | 0.703 | 0.23 | 0.06 | 0.92 | 0.059 |
| Walking/cycling ease | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| No Walking/Cycling ease | -1.73 | 0.605 | 0.18 | 0.05 | 0.58 | 0.014 | -1.167 | 0.57 | 0.31 | 0.10 | 0.95 | 0.063 |
| Pedestrian & automobile traffic safety | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| No pedestrian & automobile traffic safety | -1.69 | 0.655 | 0.18 | 0.05 | 0.67 | 0.024 | -0.777 | 0.559 | 0.46 | 0.15 | 1.38 | 0.192 |
| Crime Safe | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| Not-Crime Safe | 1.384 | 0.814 | 3.99 | 0.81 | 19.68 | 0.115 | 0.417 | 0.529 | 1.52 | 0.54 | 4.28 | 0.444 |
| Best neighborhood aesthetics | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
| Worst Neighborhood aesthetics | 0.742 | 0.634 | 2.10 | 0.61 | 7.28 | 0.265 | 0.845 | 0.573 | 2.33 | 0.76 | 7.16 | 0.166 |
*Significative association.
†Reference category.
β, Multinominal regression coefficient; SE, standard error; OR, Odds Ratio; 95%CI, 95% Confidence interval; -, values not found; MVPA, moderate to vigorous physical activity.
Continuous variables variability related to individual, family, and environmental covariates.
| Class 1: Active and Non-Sedentary | Class 2: Active and Sedentary | Class 3: Inactive and Sedentary | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quantitative covariables | Median | 25thP - 75thP | Median | 25thP - 75thP | Median | 25thP - 75thP |
| ES (d-Cohen) |
|
| ||||||||
| Age (years old) | 16 | 15–16 | 15 | 15–16 | 15 | 15–16 | 0.214 | - |
| CRF (scores) | 33 | 29.7–35 | 31.7c | 29.4–36.2 | 30.2c | 28.4–33.2 | 0.002 | 0.377 |
| Fruit intake (Number/week) | 5 | 3.0–6 | 3 | 2.0–5 | 3 | 2.0–5 | 0.009 | 0.315 |
| Vegetables intake (Number/week) | 3 | 2.5–5.5 | 4 | 3–6.7 | 4 | 3.0–6 | 0.451 | - |
| Sugar intake (Number/week) | 2 | 1.0–3 | 3 | 1.2–4.7 | 2 | 1.0–4 | 0.295 | - |
|
| ||||||||
| Land use mix-diversity | 126 | 112–145 | 142.5 | 126.5–161 | 143 | 121–163.5 | 0.03 | 0.259 |
| Residential density | 1.8 | 1.6–2 | 2.1 | 1.8–2.5 | 2.4 | 2–2.6 | <0.001 | 0.678 |
| Land use mix-diversity-access | 2.5 | 2.1–2.8 | 2.8 | 2.3–3 | 2.8 | 2.5–3 | 0.018 | 0.283 |
| Street connectivity | 3 | 2.3–3.6 | 2.6 | 2.3–3.3 | 2.6 | 2.3–3.3 | 0.27 | - |
| Walking/Cycling facilities | 2.6 | 2.0–3 | 2.6 | 2.3–3 | 2.6 | 2.3–3 | 0.509 | - |
| Traffic safety | 2.5 | 2.3–2.7 | 2.3 | 2.1–2,7 | 2.6c | 2.3–3 | 0.021 | 0.277 |
| Crime Safety | 1.8 | 1.4–2.4 | 1.7 | 1.4–2.4 | 2 | 1.4–2.3 | 0.909 | - |
| Neighborhood aesthetics | 1.7 | 1.3–2.2 | 2.3 | 2–2.7 | 2.2 | 1.7–2.7 | 0.005 | 0.344 |
*Significant difference between the 3 groups using the Kruskal-Wallis test (p <0.05).
aSignificant difference according to the Bonferroni post-hoc test (p≤0.016) between class 1 and class 2.
bSignificant difference according to the Bonferroni post-hoc test (p≤0.016) between class 1 and class 3.
cSignificant difference according to the Bonferroni post-hoc test (p≤0.016) between class 2 and class 3.
†Effect Size (d-Cohen) Desired ≥0,400.
ES, effect size; ACC, accelerometer; CRF, cardiorespiratory physical fitness.