School factors associated with the provision of physical education and levels of physical activity among elementary school students in Ontario.
Naiman, Daniel I. ; Leatherdale, Scott T. ; Gotay, Carolyn 等
It is well established that physical activity (PA) is beneficial
for preventing the onset of obesity, cardiovascular disease, and a
number of chronic conditions. (1) However, levels of PA among Canadian
youth are well below recommended levels, as less than 10% of youth
accumulate at least 1 hour of moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA) per day
(accelerometry data). (2) The school environment provides an ideal
target for promoting PA, as 1) most children attend school, regardless
of their socio-economic background, and they accumulate as much as 50%
of their PA while at school, and 2) for many, the physical education
(PE) class is their only source of regular PA. (3-5)
Many aspects of the school PE environment have been linked with an
increase in PA, including PE time, PE frequency (days/ week),
qualification of PE specialists, and PE resources. (6-13) In addition,
one of the benefits of PE is that structured classes led by PE
specialists provide students with the physical skills required to pursue
PA both inside and outside of school hours. Furthermore, Dale and
colleagues found that not only did elementary students get less total PA
on days PE was not offered, but children were actually more active in
the after-school period on days when recess and PE were offered. (14) It
is thus important to understand the factors that influence how much time
schools dedicate to PE, especially among elementary school students, as
a survey of Canadian parents found that only 22% of elementary students
are receiving at least one day of PE per week. (15)
In recent years, the number of Canadian schools that report having
a policy for daily PE has increased from 35% in 2006 to 55% in 2011.
(16) However, simple enactment of a policy will not ensure its full
implementation. For example, three years after the full implementation
of a daily PA policy was mandated in British Columbia (BC) schools,
about 35% of elementary schools still reported not meeting the
requirements of the policy. (17) In addition, schools reported that many
factors at the organizational levels (including school climate and
capacity) influenced their ability to fully implement the policy. (18)
Gaining a better understanding of the school factors associated with PE
provision is paramount, as these factors may represent barriers to
implementation of PE policies.
The purpose of this study was to re-analyze the cross-sectional
data collected as part of the 2007-2008 PLAY-Ontario (PLAY-ON) study
(Ontario, Canada) (19) to explore school characteristics associated with
the number of PE classes elementary students received at school. In
addition, this study determined whether these school characteristics and
the amount of PE that students received were associated with the PA
levels of elementary students. In a previous analysis of the PLAY-ON
data, (20) PE amount was linked with PA levels of elementary students;
therefore, our study aims to gain further insights into this
relationship.
METHODS
Participants
In total, 30 elementary schools participated in the PLAY-ON study.
Overall, 2,449 students in grades 5 to 8 completed the survey (50.6%
response rate), with non-participation mainly due to parental refusal
(46.2%; n = 2,237) or absenteeism (3.2%; n = 152). All 30 elementary
school administrators completed the school survey. The demographic
characteristics of the schools and students are shown in Table 1.
Procedure
All students in grades 5-8 attending the 30 participating schools
were eligible to participate in the study. Active consent from parents
was obtained and students were informed they could decline participation
at any point. Students completed the School Health Action, Planning and
Evaluation Physical Activity Module (SHAPES-PAM) survey at school. In
each school, one administrator or person deemed most knowledgeable about
the programs, policies and facilities was asked to fill out the School
Health Environment Survey (SHES). Schools received a cash honorarium of
CAD $150 or $250 (pro-rated based on participation). The University of
Waterloo Office of Research Ethics and appropriate school board ethics
committees approved the PLAY-ON study and procedures and the University
of British Columbia Children's and Women's Research Ethics
Board approved this secondary data analysis.
Instruments (available upon request)
SHAPES-PAM--Student Survey
The SHAPES-PAM included questions about students' age, height,
weight, PA, and correlates of PA.
Outcome variable--PE amount. Students were asked to report the
number of PE classes they were offered over the previous week, with
response options of 0-5.
Outcome variable--PA levels. Students were asked to report the
total minutes of moderate physical activity (MPA) and vigorous physical
activity (VPA) in which they participated in the previous week.
Students' MVPA was calculated by summing their weekly MPA and VPA,
with the data categorized into tertiles as children are known to have
difficulties recalling exact amounts of PA in self-report. (21) The
survey has demonstrated reliability using weighted kappa scores from a
one-week test-retest reliability protocol for PA level (K = 0.58; p <
0.05) and criterion validity with a Spearman correlation for average
daily MVPA (r = .44, p < 0.01). (22)
School Health Environment Survey (SHES)--School Survey
The SHES assessed demographic factors such as school size, urban/
rural status, and number of teachers. In addition, it asked about
facilities, programs and policies related to PA at school. The SHES has
been shown to be both reliable and valid. (23)
The Theories of Organizational Change (24) was used as a framework
to elucidate why certain schools offer more PE amounts than others and
measured: organizational climate (school practices related to PE or PA),
organizational capacity (school ability to provide students with more PE
or PA), and school PE/PA policies.
School organizational climate included assessment of whether the
school: used PA as a reward; promoted active transportation by providing
a car-free zone or a walk- or cycle-to-school program; and provided gym
access outside school hours or class time. It also assessed the level to
which parents were involved in the decisions, dialogues or events
related to school PA. The parental involvement measure was comprised of
four questions targeting these conceptual domains, which were summed
(Cronbach's alpha = 0.64). All items used a Yes/No response format,
except for: PA reward, which had four responses, ranging from not at all
to a lot (responses were dichotomized); and access to the gym, which
used "rarely", "sometimes" and "often" as
the response format.
School organizational capacity included assessment of the number of
onsite school PE facilities in addition to a gymnasium (zero to three
additional facilities, with zero and one grouped together since only one
school had no additional facilities), and whether the school provided
intramural programs (Yes/No).
School PA/PE policy asked whether the PA curriculum had been
outlined through a written policy or practice, with possible response
options being "Yes, through practice", "Yes, through a
written policy", and "No". Two manual contrasts were
created to compare responses: "Yes" (either of the
"Yes" responses) versus "No"; and "Yes, through
a written policy" versus "Yes, through practice" and
"No".
Data analysis
Multi-level mixed-effects linear regression, which accounts for the
nested structure of the data, was used to examine the school factors
associated with the amount of PE that students received. Independent
variables and covariates were entered as fixed effects. Grade and gender
were entered as random effects, as boys and girls may be offered
different amounts of PE depending on whether the school offered co-ed or
single-gender classes. The effect of grade level on PE provision was
also thought to vary by school and thus was modeled with a random slope.
We used two multi-level mixed-effects logistic regressions to
examine school characteristics associated with PA levels. In these
analyses, the amount of PE that students received was entered as an
independent variable. Although measured at the student level and entered
as a student-level variable in the analyses, this variable gives an
indication of the amount of PE provided by the school and indirectly
measured school characteristics. The first analysis compared highly
active students with those who were minimally active and the second
compared students who were moderately active to those who were minimally
active. In both analyses, all independent variables and covariates
(school-level covariates: student enrolment, setting and schedule;
student-level covariates: grade, gender, participation in sports outside
of school, participation in individual PA activities outside of school)
were modeled with random intercepts.
Multiple imputation methods were used to adjust for missing data in
the independent variables and covariates. (25) The amount of missing
data is reported in Tables 1 and 2 and ranged from 0 to 17.8% before
imputation. All analyses were completed using Stata v11 (StataCorp,
Texas).
RESULTS
School environment factors
With respect to organizational climate, most administrators
reported using PA as a reward, providing a car-free zone for encouraging
walking to and from the school, as well as providing some access to the
gymnasium during and outside of school hours (Table 2). For
organizational capacity, there was variability in the number of
additional facilities used for PE, although the majority of schools had
two additional facilities. Most schools provided intramural programs and
reported having written PA/PE guidelines or policies.
School factors associated with the amount of PE
Significant between-school variation was seen in the amount of PE
that students received ([[sigma].sup.2.sub.[mu]O] = 0.629, p < 0.001,
where [[sigma].sup.2.sub.[mu]O] is the school-level variance); it was
found that 22% of the total variation in PE amount provided to students
was explained by school-level differences, and grade levels
significantly explained the within-school variation. The results showed
that parental involvement in school PA decisions/dialogues (mainly
through the parental advisory committee) and having additional PE
facilities were significantly associated with increased PE amount (p =
0.048), while the provision of intramural programs was significantly
associated with less PE amount (p < 0.001) (Table 3). Specifically,
students received 0.53 more PE classes per 25% increase in their
school's parental-involvement scale, and 1.13 more classes per week
if their school had two additional PE facilities compared to students in
schools with zero or one additional facility besides a gymnasium.
Additionally, schools that provided intramural programs provided 1.97
fewer PE classes per week than schools that did not provide intramurals.
School factors associated with student PA levels
Significant between-school variation was identified for being
highly active ([[sigma].sup.2.sub.[mu]O] = 0.16, p < 0.05); it was
found that 4.6% of the total variation in the odds of being highly
active was explained by differences between schools. Although no
significant between-school variation was found for being moderately
active, this model was still used to explore the underlying associations
in more detail. The amount of PE that students reported receiving in the
previous week was the only significant school factor associated with
student level of PA (p = 0.003) (Table 4). Each additional PE class that
students reported receiving in the past week was associated with a 14%
increase in their odds of being highly active. There was no significant
difference in the odds of being moderately active based on the amount of
PE that students received in the past week (Table 4). In addition, after
controlling for all other covariates and the school-level factors,
students who participated in a team sport outside of school and
participated in other activities outside of school such as jogging or
yoga were more highly or moderately active than students who did not
participate in these activities (p < 0.001). Being female was found
to be associated with 44% lower odds of being highly active (p <
0.001), although there were no significant gender differences in the
odds of being moderately active (p = 0.187).
DISCUSSION
Similar to other studies conducted in Canada, (16) this study
highlights the inconsistent amount of PE that is being provided to
elementary school students. Overall, 10.1% of students reported
receiving no PE classes in the previous week, while only 12.7% reported
receiving four or more PE classes. Consistent with previous analyses of
the PLAY-ON data, (10) students reported more PA when they had more PE
classes, which implicates PE as an important predictor of total PA
behaviour. (6-9) Our findings extend previous analyses (10) by
highlighting the factors within the schools that can indirectly
influence levels of PA. Specifically, structural and organizational
factors (PA facilities, intramural offerings, and parental involvement
in PA decisions and programming) within the school environment were
related to the provision of PE, which can indirectly influence PA
behaviours given that PE provision is related to PA behaviour.
Increasing levels of parental involvement related to PA
decisions/dialogues were associated with increased PE provision.
Although this relationship has not been previously examined, this result
is supported by one of the tenets of the Theories of Organizational
Change, (24) which hypothesizes organizational climate to be associated
with PA decisions/dialogues (e.g., amount of PE provided). Based on
these findings, we suggest that schools should attempt to include
parents to a greater extent in the PA-related activities of the school,
as this involvement seems to be linked with more PE provision.
We also found that the number of additional on-site facilities that
teachers could use for PE classes was associated with providing more PE.
Post-hoc analyses investigated whether the presence of any individual
facilities (rather than a summative number of additional facilities) was
associated with greater provision of PE (results not shown).
Interestingly, while the cumulative number of facilities was shown to be
significant, no associations were found between PE amount and specific
types of PA facilities. This finding suggests that for schools that are
limited by physical space to provide PE, the absolute number of
additional spaces besides a gymnasium can be a limiting factor for the
provision of PE, rather than the presence or absence of any one
facility. Our findings contrast with those in the study by Fernandes and
Sturn, (26) which may be due to the way the latter defined "other
facilities"--they included auditoriums, cafeterias and classrooms
as potential alternatives to a gymnasium for providing PE, which are
less conducive for teaching curricular PE. (26) Unfortunately,
increasing the number of facilities on school grounds for PE is not
feasible for many schools due to lack of physical space or adequate
funding. As an alternative, schools with limited PA facilities may
increase PE opportunities by partnering with nearby community centres,
agencies, or private sporting facilities to aid in the delivery of PE
off school grounds.
Interestingly, we found that schools that provided students with
intramural programming actually provided less PE to their students,
suggesting that intramural programming might be used by schools as an
alternative to PE delivery. Although there are previously documented
associations between the presence of intramural programs and greater
levels of student PA, (27) if intramural programs are indeed associated
with less PE provided to students, there is a risk of creating
disparities in the PA levels of students within a given school. Since
intramural programs are usually optional, (28) it is probable that the
students who are already active, highly skilled, and/or enjoy sports are
more likely to participate in intramurals than the relatively inactive
students who would benefit the most from PA administered in a required
PE class. Although intramural programs might be useful for increasing
the PA levels of some children, they are not a suitable replacement for
teaching other aspects of the curricular PE class (healthy living and
skill development components). For example, intramurals are often
focused on competition rather than skill acquisition and improvement,
and there is often little oversight as to whether students are showing
improvement in the activities or not.
The amount of PE provided to students was the only factor
significantly associated with the PA levels of students. The literature
indicates that environmental factors within the school, while important
on a population level, account for only a fractional amount of the
variation in the daily PA accumulated by individual children (between
2.2 and 5.7% of the total variation in PA). (29) In this study,
school-level differences accounted for 4.6% of the variability in the
odds of being highly active, and did not account for any differences in
the odds of being moderately active. Thus, there was relatively little
between-school variation in the PA levels of students that could have
been explained by these school factors--especially when compared to PE
provision, where 22% of the variability was explained by differences
between schools.
The results of this study should be interpreted in light of its
limitations. First, this study utilized a cross-sectional design, which
limits the ability to make causal inferences. Second, this study used a
convenient sample of schools, and as such, the results cannot be
extrapolated to all students and schools in the province of Ontario or
beyond. Third, because it is known that students often misreport their
actual PA levels in self-report, (21) this measure does not allow for
the interpretation of results in terms of the actual minutes of MVPA
that students participated in, which would likely be of some importance
to policy-makers. Fourth, although PE amount is a school factor, we
utilized the student data to measure PE amount to account for the
variability within schools which could not be captured from the school
principal survey (i.e., variation within and between grades). Future
studies should consider obtaining this information from classroom
teachers to minimize measurement errors. Fifth, as PE was taught by
classroom teachers, we were not able to examine the extent to which
having PE specialists increases total PA. Finally, the self-report
methods used for this study were subject to a number of potential
biases. For example, students may have misreported their answers based
on recall bias or inability to understand the question. Additionally,
although honest administrator reporting was encouraged, social
desirability bias may have resulted in more positive impressions of
their schools. Despite these limitations, this study is one of a few
that have examined the influences of environmental factors on PE
provision and PA levels among elementary students.
CONCLUSION
As the PA levels of Canadian children continue to decrease at an
alarming rate, (2) it is vital that policy-makers and researchers work
together to address this critical issue. In this study, we found that
organizational and structural factors within the school environment were
related to the amount of PE that students received at school. While
policy-makers should be encouraged to make daily PE requirements
mandatory, we need to address the organizational and structural factors
that impede schools from offering more PE. Currently, only less than 10%
of Canadian children are meeting the PA guidelines; (2) finding ways to
ensure that PE is provided to all students will no doubt help to improve
this troubling statistic.
REFERENCES
(1.) Bryan SN, Katzmarzyk PT. The association between meeting
physical activity guidelines and chronic diseases among Canadian adults.
J Phys Act Health 2011; 8(1):10-17. PMID: 21297180.
(2.) Colley RC, Garriguet D, Janssen I, Craig CL, Clarke J,
Tremblay MS. Physical activity of Canadian children and youth:
Accelerometer results from the 2007 to 2009 Canadian Health Measures
Survey. Health Rep 2011; 22(1): 15-23. PMID: 21510586.
(3.) Institute of Medicine (IOM). Accelerating Progress in Obesity
Prevention: Solving the Weight of the Nation. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press, 2012.
(4.) Brownson RC, Chriqui JF, Burgeson CR, Fisher MC, Ness RB.
Translating epidemiology into policy to prevent childhood obesity: The
case for promoting physical activity in school settings. Ann Epidemiol
2010; 20(6): 436-44. PMID: 20470970. doi:
10.1016/j.annepidem.2010.03.001.
(5.) Hannon JC. Physical activity levels of overweight and
nonoverweight high school students during physical education classes. J
Sch Health 2008; 78(8):425-31. PMID: 18651929. doi:
10.1111/j.1746-1561.2008.00325.x.
(6.) Kim J. Are physical education-related state policies and
schools' physical education requirement related to children's
physical activity and obesity? J Sch Health 2012; 82(6):268-76. PMID:
22568462. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2012. 00697.x.
(7.) Sanchez-Vaznaugh EV, Sanchez BN, Rosas LG, Baek J, Egerter S.
Physical education policy compliance and children's physical
fitness. Am J Prev Med 2012; 42(5):452-59. PMID: 22516484. doi:
10.1016/j.amepre.2012.01.008.
(8.) Durant N, Harris SK, Doyle S, Person S, Saelens BE, Kerr J, et
al. Relation of school environment and policy to adolescent physical
activity. J Sch Health 2009; 79(4):153-59. PMID: 19292847. doi:
10.1111/j.1746-1561.2008. 00384.x.
(9.) Pate RR, Ward DS, O'Neill JR, Dowda M. Enrollment in
physical education is associated with overall physical activity in
adolescent girls. Res Q Exerc Sport 2007; 78(4):265-70. PMID: 17941531.
(10.) Hobin EP, Leatherdale ST, Manske SR, Robertson-Wilson J. A
multilevel examination of school and student characteristics associated
with moderate and high levels of physical activity among elementary
school students (Ontario, Canada). Can J Public Health 2010;
101(6):495-99. PMID: 21370788.
(11.) Martin K, Bremner A, Salmon J, Rosenberg M, Giles-Corti B.
Physical, policy, and sociocultural characteristics of the primary
school environment are positively associated with children's
physical activity during class time. J Phys Act Health 2014;
11(3):553-63. PMID: 23416795. doi: 10.1123/jpah. 2011-0443.
(12.) Skala KA, Springer AE, Sharma SV, Hoelscher DM, Kelder SH.
Environmental characteristics and student physical activity in PE class:
Findings from two large urban areas of Texas. J Phys Act Health 2012;
9(4):481-91. PMID: 21934165.
(13.) Turner L, Johnson TG, Slater SJ, Chaloupka FJ. Physical
activity practices in elementary schools and associations with physical
education staffing and training. Res Q Exerc Sport 2014; 85(4):488-501.
PMID: 25412131. doi: 10.1080/ 02701367.2014.961053.
(14.) Dale D, Corbin CB, Dale KS. Restricting opportunities to be
active during school time: Do children compensate by increasing physical
activity levels after school? Res Q Exerc Sport 2000; 71(3):240-48.
PMID: 10999261.
(15.) Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute. 2005
Physical Activity Monitor, Bulletin 03: Physical Activity Programming in
the School Environment. 2005. Available at:
http://www.cflri.ca/media/node/375/files/pam2005_sec3. pdf (Accessed
March 20, 2015).
(16.) Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute.
Encouraging Active Schools: 2011 Opportunities for Physical Activity at
School Survey. 2012. Bulletin 12: Policies related to physical
activity:1-6. Available at: http://www.cflri.ca/
sites/default/files/node/1054/files/Schools%202011%20Bulletin%2012%20-%
20Policy%20EN.pdf (Accessed March 20, 2015).
(17.) Watts AW Saewyc E, Naylor PJ, Masse LC. Impact of nutrition
and physical activity policies on the school environment: Case study in
British Columbia. IntJ Behav Nutr Phys Act2014;14(11):50.
(18.) Masse LC, Naiman D, Naylor PJ. A qualitative look at factors
that affect implementation of a school-based nutrition policy. Paper
presented at the International Society of Behavioral Nutrition and
Physical Activity, Melbourne, Australia, June 2011.
(19.) School Health and Action Planning Evaluation System. Physical
Activity at PLAY-ON Schools. Final Report. Waterloo, ON: University of
Waterloo, June 2008.
(20.) Hobin EP, Leatherdale ST, Manske S, Dubin JA, Elliott S,
Veugelers P. A multilevel examination of gender differences in the
association between features of the school environment and physical
activity among a sample of grades 9 to 12 students in Ontario, Canada.
BMC Public Health 2012; 12:74. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-74.
(21.) Pate RR. Assessing the level of physical activity in
children. In: Bouchard C, Katzmarzyk PT (Eds.), Physical Activity and
Obesity. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2010, 22-25.
(22.) Wong SL, Leatherdale ST, Manske SR. Reliability and validity
of a school-based physical activity questionnaire. Med Sci Sports Exerc
2006; 38(9):1593600. PMID: 16960520.
(23.) School Health and Action Planning Evaluation System. Results
from Provincial Implementation of the 2007-2008 School Health
Environment Survey. Waterloo, ON: Propel Centre for Population and
Health Impact, 2008.
(24.) Steckler A, Goodman RM, Kegler MC. Mobilizing organizations
for health enhancement: Theories of organizational change. In: Glanz K,
Rimer BK, Lewis BM (Eds.), Health Behavior and Health Education, 2nd ed.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2002, 335-60.
(25.) Donders AR, van der Heijden GJ, Stijnen T, Moons KG. Review:
A gentle introduction to imputation of missing values. J Clin Epidemiol
2006; 59(10): 1087-91. PMID: 16980149.
(26.) Fernandes M, Sturm R. Facility provision in elementary
schools: Correlates with physical education, recess, and obesity. Prev
Med 2010; 50(Suppl 1): S30-35. PMID: 19850074. doi:
10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.09.022.
(27.) Perkins DF, Jacobs JE, Barber BL, Eccles JS. Childhood and
adolescent sports participation as predictors of participation in sports
and physical fitness activities during young adulthood. Youth Soc 2004;
35:495-520. doi: 10.1177/ 0044118X03261619.
(28.) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Promoting Better
Health for Young People Through Physical Activity and Sports. 2000.
Available at: http:// www2.ed.gov/offices/OSDFS/physedrpt.pdf (Accessed
March 20, 2015).
(29.) Murray DM, Stevens J, Hannan PJ, Catellier DJ, Schmitz KH,
Dowda M, et al. School-level intraclass correlation for physical
activity in sixth grade girls. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2006; 38(5):926-36.
PMID: 16672847.
Received: November 12, 2014
Accepted: March 25, 2015
Daniel I. Naiman, MSc, [1] Scott T. Leatherdale, PhD, [2] Carolyn
Gotay, PhD, [3] Louise C. Masse, PhD [3]
Author Affiliations
[1.] Directorate of Agencies for School Health (DASH) British
Columbia, Vancouver, BC
[2.] School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of
Waterloo, Waterloo, ON
[3.] School of Population and Public Health, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, BC
Correspondence: Louise C. Masse, PhD, Child & Family Research
Institute, School of Population and Public Health, University of British
Columbia, 4480 Oak Street, Rm F508, Vancouver, BC V6H 3V4, Tel:
*2*604-875-2000, ext. 5563, E-mail: lmasse@cfri.ubc.ca
Funding sources: Louise C. Masse was funded through salary support
provided by the Child & Family Research Institute (CFRI) located at
the Children's & Women's Health Centre of British
Columbia. Daniel Naiman received a stipend for his MSc through the
Canadian Institutes of Health Research Frederick Banting and Charles
Best Canada Graduate Scholarship award.
Conflict of Interest: None to declare.
Table 1. Descriptive information about the students (n = 2449) and
schools (n = 30)
Mean (standard
deviation);
range,
inter-quartile
Responses % range (IQR)
Gender (n = 2436) Male 47.4% --
Female 52.6% --
Grade (n = 2443) 5 24.4% --
6 26.2% --
7 26.6% --
8 22.8% --
Ethnicity (n = 2449) Caucasian 79.0% --
Other 21.0% --
Number of physical 0 10.5% --
education classes 1 13.3% --
in previous week 2 40.0% --
(n = 2357) 3 19.8% --
4 7.8% --
5 9.2% --
Physical activity Minimally active 32.9% --
amount (n = 2398) Moderately active 33.4% --
Highly active 33.7% --
Participation in No 27.7% --
team sports outside Yes 72.3% --
of school (n = 2363)
Participation in No 38.2% --
other activities Yes 61.8% --
(e.g., jogging)
outside of school
(n = 2355)
School setting Urban/inner-city 17.2% --
(n = 29) Suburban 48.3% --
Rural 34.5% --
Number of students -- -- 377 (105);
enrolled at school range = [214-630]
(n = 29) IQR: 280-440
Number of students -- -- 82 (34);
per school (n = 29) range = [25-158]
IQR: 58-105
School schedule Semestered 24.1% --
(n = 29) Full-year classes 75.9% --
Table 2. Descriptive information on the underlying school
factors hypothesized to be associated with the amount of
physical education (PE) provided at school and levels of
physical activity (PA)
Mean (standard
deviations)
range, inter-
quartile range
Responses % (IQR)
Uses PA as a Very little/not at all 33.3% --
reward (n = 27) A lot/some 66.7% --
Provides a No 42.9% --
car-free zone Yes 57.1% --
(n = 28)
Provides a No 60.7% --
walking/cycling Yes 29.3% --
program at
school (n = 28)
Provides gym No 29.3% --
access outside Yes 60.7% --
school hours (n
= 28)
Provides gym Rarely/never ('rarely') 13.3% --
access during Sometimes ('sometimes') 56.7% --
school (n = 30) A lot/always ('often') 30.0% --
Parental -- -- 52.6 (32.9);
involvement in range = [0-100]
school PA IQR: 25-75
decisions/ None 3.3% --
dialogues (n = One 23.3% --
29) Additional Two 60.0% --
facilities for Three 13.3% --
PE besides gym
(n = 30)
School has an No 16.7% --
intramural Yes 83.3% --
program (n =
30)
School has a No 16.7% --
PA/PE policy Yes, through 23.3% --
practices
Yes, through 60.0% --
written policy
Table 3. Results showing school factors associated with the
amount of physical education (PE) provided to students
95%
confidence
Estimate p value interval
Fixed effects parameters
Constant 1.94 0.002 ** [0.78, 3.23]
Organizational climate
Uses PA as a reward 0.00 0.993 [-0.73, 0.73]
([double dagger])
Provides a car-free 0.37 0.255 [-0.27, 1.01]
zone ([section])
Provides a walking/
cycling program
at school ([section]) -0.38 0.224 [-1.00, 0.24]
Provides gym
access outside
school hours
([section]) 0.50 0.210 [-0.28, 1.27]
Provides gym access 0.06 0.901 [-0.85, 0.96]
during school -
rarely ([dagger]) vs.
sometimes or often
Provides gym access 0.24 0.631 [-0.72, 1.19]
during school -
rarely' vs. often
Parental involvement 0.53 0.001 ** [0.23, 0.82]
in school ([parallel])
PA decisions/
dialogues
Organizational capacity
Additional 1.13 0.048 * [0.01, 2.26]
facilities for PE -
0 or 1 ([dagger)
vs. 2
Additional 1.32 0.055 [-0.03, 2.66]
facilities for PE -
0 or 1 ([dagger])
vs. 3
School has intramural -1.97 0.000 ** [-3.00, -0.95]
programs ([section])
PA/PE policy
School has a policy - -0.16 0.684 [-0.91, 0.60]
no' vs. yes
(practices or
written policy)
School has a policy - 0.04 0.914 [-0.76, 0.85]
no or yes (practices)
([dagger]) vs. yes
(written policy)
Covariates
Number of students 0.00 0.441 [-0.01, 0.00]
enrolled at school
School setting - -0.30 0.411 [-1.01, 0.42]
urban ([dagger])
vs. suburban
School setting - -0.10 0.843 [-1.12, 0.92]
urban ([dagger])
vs. rural
School schedule - -0.47 0.187 [-1.16, 0.23]
semestered
([dagger]) vs.
full-year classes 95%
Standard confidence
Estimate error interval
Random effects
parameters
Constant [4.42.sup.-9] NR NR
Grade 0.09 0.025 *** [0.05, 0.16]
Gender-male ([dagger]) 0.01 0.010 [0.00, 0.04]
vs. female
PA = physical activity; PE = physical education; NR = not reported
since near zero.
([dagger]) Referent group.
([double dagger]) Binary "low" versus "high" variable, with "low" as
the referent group.
([section]) Binary "yes" versus "no", with "no" as the referent group.
([parallel]) Estimate for the continuous variable was scaled to
represent a 25% increase in parental involvement.
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** significant since estimate divided by
standard error > 2.
Table 4. Results showing school factors associated with the odds
of being highly active versus minimally active (Model 1) or
moderately active versus minimally active (Model 2)
Model 1 (high vs. minimal) n = 1637
Fixed effects parameters
95%
confidence
interval
Odds ratio p-value (CI)
Organizational
climate
Uses PA as a 0.88 0.445 [0.63, 1.23]
reward ([double
dagger])
Provides a car- 0.76 0.082 [0.55, 1.03]
free zone
([section])
Provides a 1.31 0.111 [0.94, 1.82]
walking/cycling
program at
school
([section])
Provides gym 1.15 0.413 [0.82, 1.63]
access outside
school hours
([section])
Provides gym 0.80 0.380 [0.48, 1.32]
access during
school--rarely
([dagger]) vs.
sometimes/often
Provides gym 0.83 0.530 [0.47, 1.48]
access during
school--rarely
([dagger])
vs. often
Parental 1.00 ([parallel]) 0.987 [0.87, 1.15]
involvement
in school PA
decisions/
dialogues
Organizational
capacity
Additional 1.28 0.396 [0.72, 2.30]
facilities for
PE--0 or 1
([dagger])
vs. 2
Additional 1.62 0.160 [0.83, 3.18]
facilities for
PE--0 or 1
([dagger])
vs. 3
School has 1.05 0.870 [0.58, 1.90]
intramural
programs
([section])
PA/PE policy
School has a 1.16 0.477 [0.77, 1.74]
policy--no
([dagger]) vs.
yes (practices
or written)
School has a 1.15 0.504 [0.77, 1.71]
policy--no or
yes (practices)
([dagger]) vs.
yes (written)
Opportunities for
PE at school
Number of PE 1.14 0.003 ** [1.05, 1.24]
classes in
previous week
Covariates
Participation in 2.75 0.000 ** [2.15, 3.54]
team sports
outside of
school
([section])
Participation in 2.48 0.000 ** [1.97, 3.10]
other activities
(e.g., jogging)
outside of
school
([section])
Grade 1.10 0.062 [1.00, 1.21]
Gender--male 0.66 0.000 ** [0.53, 0.81]
([dagger])
vs. female
Random effects parameters
Standard
Estimate error 95% CI
Constant 2.05-10 29.17 NR
Model 2 (moderate vs. minimal) n = 1619
Fixed effects parameters
Odds ratio p-value 95% CI
Organizational
climate
Uses PA as a 0.94 0.700 [0.67, 1.31]
reward ([double
dagger])
Provides a car- 0.81 0.176 [0.60, 1.10]
free zone
([section])
Provides a 1.00 0.986 [0.72, 1.38]
walking/cycling
program at
school
([section])
Provides gym 0.89 0.450 [0.66, 1.20]
access outside
school hours
([section])
Provides gym 1.09 0.729 [0.58, 1.79]
access during
school--rarely
([dagger]) vs.
sometimes/often
Provides gym 1.01 0.959 [0.58, 1.82]
access during
school--rarely
([dagger])
vs. often
Parental 1.01 ([parallel]) 0.902 [0.88, 1.16]
involvement
in school PA
decisions/
dialogues
Organizational
capacity
Additional 0.90 0.687 [0.52, 1.53]
facilities for
PE--0 or 1
([dagger])
vs. 2
Additional 1.20 0.563 [0.64, 2.24]
facilities for
PE--0 or 1
([dagger])
vs. 3
School has 1.26 0.407 [0.73, 2.20]
intramural
programs
([section])
PA/PE policy
School has a 1.03 0.894 [0.70, 1.50]
policy--no
([dagger]) vs.
yes (practices
or written)
School has a 1.12 0.536 [0.77, 1.65]
policy--no or
yes (practices)
([dagger]) vs.
yes (written)
Opportunities for
PE at school
Number of PE 1.05 0.245 [-1.94, -0.11]
classes in
previous week
Covariates
Participation in 1.72 0.000 ** [1.38, 2.15]
team sports
outside of
school
([section])
Participation in 1.69 0.000 ** [1.37, 2.10]
other activities
(e.g., jogging)
outside of
school
([section])
Grade 0.87 0.107 [0.71, 1.07]
Gender--male 1.08 0.187 [0.98, 1.18]
([dagger])
vs. female
Random effects parameters
Standard
Estimate error 95% CI
Constant 1.26-11 7.92 NR
PA = physical activity; PE = physical education; NR = not
reported since near zero.
([dagger]) Referent group.
([double dagger]) Binary "low" versus "high" variable, with
"low" as the referent group.
([section]) Binary "yes" versus "no", with "no" as the
referent group.
([parallel]) Estimate for the continuous variable was scaled
to represent a 25% increase in parental involvement.
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
