Mandic Sandra, Leon de la Barra Sophia, García Bengoechea Enrique, Stevens Emily, Flaherty Charlotte, Moore Antoni, Middlemiss Melanie, Williams John, Skidmore Paula
School of Physical Education, Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Otago, New Zealand.
Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, New Zealand.
J Sci Med Sport. 2015 Jul;18(4):432-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2014.06.012. Epub 2014 Jun 27.
With increasingly sedentary lifestyles, opportunities for physical activity such as active transport to school need to be promoted in adolescents. This study examines personal, social and environmental correlates of active transport to school among adolescents including sociodemographics, behavioural patterns, motivational factors, perceived barriers, peer support, family resources, school characteristics, urban/rural setting, distance to school and neighbourhood safety perceptions.
Cross-sectional study.
In 2009 and 2011, 2018 secondary school students (age: 14.8±1.3 years; 73% urban; 53% boys) from 22 out of 24 schools from Otago, New Zealand completed the Otago School Students Lifestyle Survey. Multivariate binary logistic regression models were used to compare active transport to school correlates in students using active transport to school versus bus and car users (motorised transport).
Overall, 37% of students used active transport to school, 24% bus, and 39% car. Compared to motorised transport users, active transport to school users were more likely to live closer to school (1.4±1.4 active transport to school vs. 8.3±8.4km motorised transport; p<0.001). In a multivariate analysis, shorter distance to school (OR (95%CI) (0.03 (0.01-0.05)), younger age (0.85 (0.78-0.92)), fewer vehicles (0.66 (0.49-0.89)) and fewer screens (0.53 (0.35-0.82)) per household, meeting screen time guidelines (1.74 (1.22-2.50)), opportunity to chat with friends (2.26 (1.58-3.23)), nice scenery (1.69 (1.14-2.50)), and parental perceptions of active transport to school safety (2.32 (1.25-4.30)) were positively associated with active transport to school, while perceived time constraints (0.46 (0.29-0.72)) and attending girls-only school (0.51 (0.35-0.75)) had a negative association with active transport to school.
Future active transport to school interventions in adolescents should focus on encouraging active transport to school, reiterating its social benefits, and addressing parental safety concerns around active transport to school.
随着生活方式日益久坐，需要在青少年中推广诸如步行或骑车上学等身体活动机会。本研究调查了青少年步行或骑车上学的个人、社会和环境相关因素，包括社会人口统计学特征、行为模式、动机因素、感知到的障碍、同伴支持、家庭资源、学校特征、城乡环境、距离学校的远近以及对邻里安全的认知。
横断面研究。
在2009年和2011年，来自新西兰奥塔哥地区24所学校中22所学校的2018名中学生（年龄：14.8±1.3岁；73%来自城市；53%为男生）完成了奥塔哥中学生生活方式调查。多变量二元逻辑回归模型用于比较步行或骑车上学的学生与乘坐公交和汽车上学的学生（机动交通）的相关因素。
总体而言，37%的学生步行或骑车上学，24%乘坐公交，39%乘坐汽车。与机动交通使用者相比，步行或骑车上学的学生住得离学校更近（步行或骑车上学的学生距离为1.4±1.4公里，机动交通使用者为8.3±8.4公里；p<0.001）。在多变量分析中，距离学校更近（比值比（95%置信区间）为0.03（0.01 - 0.05））、年龄较小（0.85（0.78 - 0.92））、每户车辆较少（0.66（0.49 - 0.89））和屏幕较少（0.53（0.35 - 0.82））、符合屏幕使用时间指南（1.74（1.22 - 2.50））、有机会与朋友聊天（2.26（1.58 - 3.23））、风景优美（1.69（1.14 - 2.50））以及父母对步行或骑车上学安全性的认知（2.32（1.25 - 4.30））与步行或骑车上学呈正相关，而感知到的时间限制（0.46（0.29 - 0.72））和就读女子学校（0.51（0.35 - 0.75））与步行或骑车上学呈负相关。
未来针对青少年步行或骑车上学的干预措施应侧重于鼓励步行或骑车上学，重申其社会效益，并解决家长对步行或骑车上学安全性的担忧。
