Cross-sectional analysis reveals 17% prevalence of no-to-low physical activity among adolescents, indicating a need for targeted interventions.
Background: Although many studies examine adolescent physical activity (PA) guideline adherence, few focus on the lowest end of the PA spectrum—engaging in no-to-low moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA). Methods: This study characterized cross-sectional and longitudinal patterns of device-measured no-to-low MVPA among a cohort of US adolescents and examined sociodemographic and neighborhood-level correlates. This secondary analysis used data from years 2 and 4 of the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study. Participants wore a Fitbit Charge HR 2 on their nondominant wrist 24 hours per day for 3 weeks to assess daily MVPA. No-to-low MVPA was defined as <8.57 minutes per day of MVPA (<1 d/wk meeting PA recommendations). Neighborhood conditions were captured using the Child Opportunity Index 2.0. Survey-weighted logistic regression models examined sociodemographic and neighborhood-level correlates of no-to-low MVPA, adjusted for covariates. A total of 5786 adolescents (49% female; mean = 11.99 [0.65] y) had complete data at year 2, with 1348 (51% female) providing data at both years. Results: The prevalence of no-to-low MVPA was 17% at year 2, 15% at year 4, and 7.3% across both years, with 10% of adolescents transitioning into and 63% transitioning out of no-to-low MVPA between time points. Females and adolescents from low-income households had higher odds of engaging in no-to-low MVPA at both time points. Adolescents in higher opportunity neighborhoods had lower odds of no-to-low MVPA. Conclusions: This study addresses a critical PA surveillance gap by using device-based measures to quantify no-to-low MVPA among US adolescents. Findings identify at-risk groups and underscore the need for targeted interventions to reduce disparities and improve MVPA engagement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brown et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: