Family & community health · 2025
Insights Into Rural Youth Physical Activity: The Role of Micro- and Macro-Level Environments.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Folk Amanda L, Kramer-Kostecka Eydie N, Friend Sarah, Clark Justin M, Linde Jennifer A, Barr-Anderson Daheia J, Fulkerson Jayne A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Physical activity (PA) environments at micro- (e.g., home) and macro-levels (e.g., built) may be associated with rural children's PA, an underrepresented population in research. A secondary data analyses of NU-HOME, a family-based childhood obesity prevention RCT, examined which environmental supports explain variation in moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA), vigorous PA (VPA), and total PA.
METHODS: Gold standard measurement tools (geospatial analysis; accelerometry) and surveys were used to assess children's (N=105, age 7-10) PA environments and behaviors. Environmental supports were evaluated in a block-wise manner. Each variable was placed into one block (i.e., sociodemographic characteristics, physical supports, or social supports). Blocks were added in a sequential manner to multiple linear regression models, controlling for sociodemographic variables, and analyzed for their group-wise ability to explain variation in MVPA, VPA, and total PA.
RESULTS: At micro- and macro-levels, differences in MVPA were explained by physical supports (ΔR2=0.06, p=0.03; ΔR2=0.13; p=0.04). Explained variance in VPA was improved by neither physical nor social supports at either level. Physical supports explained differences in total PA at the micro- (ΔR2=0.09, p=0.01) and macro-levels (ΔR2=0.17, p=0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Further research is warranted to explore if expanding access to PA equipment and infrastructure supports mitigates inactivity in rural youth.
METHODS: Gold standard measurement tools (geospatial analysis; accelerometry) and surveys were used to assess children's (N=105, age 7-10) PA environments and behaviors. Environmental supports were evaluated in a block-wise manner. Each variable was placed into one block (i.e., sociodemographic characteristics, physical supports, or social supports). Blocks were added in a sequential manner to multiple linear regression models, controlling for sociodemographic variables, and analyzed for their group-wise ability to explain variation in MVPA, VPA, and total PA.
RESULTS: At micro- and macro-levels, differences in MVPA were explained by physical supports (ΔR2=0.06, p=0.03; ΔR2=0.13; p=0.04). Explained variance in VPA was improved by neither physical nor social supports at either level. Physical supports explained differences in total PA at the micro- (ΔR2=0.09, p=0.01) and macro-levels (ΔR2=0.17, p=0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Further research is warranted to explore if expanding access to PA equipment and infrastructure supports mitigates inactivity in rural youth.