What does this research mean for the field?

Community environments and awareness of sports policies positively impact moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and fitness in children and adolescents, whereas family environments primarily support low-intensity activity and school environments have no significant impact. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.INCREMENTAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

September 10, 2024Open Access

Impact of awareness of sports policies, school, family, and community environmental on physical activity and fitness among children and adolescents: a structural equation modeling study

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Understanding the impact of environmental factors on physical activity (PA) and physical fitness (PF) is crucial for promoting a healthy lifestyle among children and adolescents. This study examines how awareness of sports policies, school, family, and community environments influence PA and PF in Chinese youth. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 2747 children and adolescents (mean age 12.90 ± 2.49; 48.2% male) from 17 schools across five Chinese cities. Environmental factors were assessed via questionnaires, and PA levels were measured using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short Form (IPAQ-SF). PF metrics, including BMI, waist-to-height ratio, grip strength, vertical jump, and 20-m shuttle run test (20-mSRT), were measured onsite. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used to explore relationships between environmental factors and PA/PF outcomes. RESULTS: The school environment scored highest (78.0 ± 9.5), while the community environment scored lowest (38.7 ± 18.0). Family environment positively influenced low-intensity PA (LPA) (β = 0.102, P < 0.001) but negatively affected moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA) (β = -0.055, P = 0.035). Community environment and awareness of sports policies positively impacted MVPA (β = 0.216, P < 0.001; β = 0.072, P = 0.009, respectively). Family environment positively influenced BMI reduction (β = -0.103, P < 0.001) but negatively affected grip strength (β = -0.063, P = 0.018). Community environment improved grip strength and 20-mSRT performance (β = 0.088, P = 0.002; β = 0.065, P = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: School environments, despite high scores, do not significantly impact PA and PF. Community environments, though scoring lower, positively affect MVPA, grip strength, and 20-mSRT. Awareness of sports policies boosts MVPA, while family environments support LPA and BMI but are inversely related to MVPA and grip strength. Integrated strategies involving community infrastructure, family support, and policy awareness are essential for promoting active lifestyles among children and adolescents.

Ask AI

Helpful

Bookmark

View Full Paper