Abstract
Abstract
Background
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of a walking school bus intervention on children’s active commuting to school.
Methods
We conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in Houston, Texas (Year 1) and Seattle, Washington (Years 2–4) from 2012 to 2016. The study had a two-arm, cluster randomized design comparing the intervention (walking school bus and education materials) to the control (education materials) over one school year October/November – May/June). Twenty-two schools that served lower income families participated. Outcomes included percentage of days students’ active commuting to school (primary, measured via survey) and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA, measured via accelerometry). Follow-up took place in May or June. We used linear mixed-effects models to estimate the association between the intervention and outcomes of interest.
Results
Total sample was 418 students [Mage=9.2 (SD = 0.9) years; 46% female], 197 (47%) in the intervention group. The intervention group showed a significant increase compared with the control group over time in percentage of days active commuting (β = 9.04; 95% CI: 1.10, 16.98; p = 0.015) and MVPA minutes/day (β = 4.31; 95% CI: 0.70, 7.91; p = 0.02).
Conclusions
These findings support implementation of walking school bus programs that are inclusive of school-age children from lower income families to support active commuting to school and improve physical activity.
Trail registration
This RCT is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01626807).
Funder
Foundation for the National Institutes of Health
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference54 articles.
1. Hallal PC, Andersen LB, Bull FC, Guthold R, Haskell W, Ekelund U, et al. Global physical activity levels: surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Lancet. 2012;380(9838):247–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60646-1.
2. Aubert S, Barnes JD, Aguilar-Farias N, Cardon G, Chang C-K, Nyström CD, et al. Report card grades on the physical activity of children and youth comparing 30 very high human development index countries. J Phys Act Health. 2018;15(s2):S298–314. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2018-0431.
3. Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. 2018 National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH) data query. Data Resource Center for Child and Adolescent Health supported by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB); 2018; https://www.childhealthdata.org/learn-about-the-nsch/NSCH.
4. Singh GK, Kogan MD, Siahpush M, Van Dyck PC. Independent and joint effects of socioeconomic, behavioral, and neighborhood characteristics on physical inactivity and activity levels among US children and adolescents. J Community Health. 2008;33:206–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-008-9094-8.
5. Chillon P, Ortega FB, Ruiz JR, Veidebaum T, Oja L, Mäestu J, et al. Active commuting to school in children and adolescents: an opportunity to increase physical activity and fitness. cand J Public Health. 2010;38(8):873–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494810384427.