The goal of this special issue of Kinesiology Review is to expose kinesiology to a body of knowledge that is unfamiliar to most in the field. That body of knowledge is broad, deep, rich, and enduring. In addition, it brings with it a skill set that could be extremely helpful to professional practice, whether in teaching, coaching, training, health work, or rehabilitation. The body of knowledge and skills comes from a loosely defined field of study I have referred to as “complementary and alternative approaches to movement education” (CAAME). The field of CAAME is as diverse as the field of kinesiology. This introductory article focuses on what the field of CAAME has to teach kinesiology and what the field could learn from kinesiology. The overarching aim of the special issue is to foster dialogue and collaboration between students and scholars of kinesiology and practitioners of CAAME.
Bradford C. Bennett
Thomas Hanna’s somatic work has been essential to the development of the field of somatic education. From redefining the word “somatic” and developing the concept of somatics as a field of study, to starting the magazine/journal Somatics, to developing theories and practices of somatic education, Hanna greatly influenced this fledgling area of work. This article presents the somatic philosophy, theories, and education techniques of Hanna, focusing on the aspects that are unique to this somatic explorer. Hanna’s techniques are contrasted to the traditional somatic movement training of Tai Chi. The difficulties of researching a learning such as somatic education are discussed. Ideas are presented on how kinesiology and somatic education can inform each other.
Marcelo Toledo-Vargas, Patricio Perez-Contreras, Damian Chandia-Poblete and Nicolas Aguilar-Farias
Background: The purpose was to determine the proportion of 9- to 11-year-old children meeting the 24-hour movement guidelines (24-HMG) in a low-income town from Chile. Methods: Physical activity, sedentary behavior (recreational screen), and sleep times were measured with both questionnaire and accelerometer in 258 children from third to sixth grade. Meeting the 24-HMG was defined as having ≥60 minutes per day of moderate to vigorous physical activity, ≤2 hour day of screen time, and 9 to 11 hours of sleep per night. Compliance rates were calculated as self-reported 24-HMG, with all estimations based on questionnaires, and mixed 24-HMG, in which physical activity and sleep were determined with an accelerometer and sedentary behavior was determined with a questionnaire. Results: About 198 children (10.1 [0.8] y, range 9–11 y) provided valid data for estimating self-reported 24-HMG, and 141 for mixed 24-HMG. Only 3.2% and 0.7% met the 24-HMG when using the self-reported and mixed methods, respectively. When assessing individual recommendations, 13.1% and 3.7% of the sample were physically active based on the self-report and accelerometer, respectively. About a quarter met the sedentary behavior recommendations, while around 50% met the sleep recommendations with both self-reported and mixed methods. Conclusions: An extremely low percentage of the participants met the 24-HMG. Multicomponent initiatives must be implemented to promote healthy movement behaviors in Chilean children.
Gina M. Besenyi, Emi B. Hayashi and Richard W. Christiana
Background: Health care providers (HCPs) promoting physical activity (PA) through programs such as Park Prescriptions (ParkRx) are gaining momentum. However, it is difficult to realize provider PA practices and program interest, and differences in program success exist by provider type (eg, primary vs secondary). This study explored HCPs’ (1) PA counseling practices, (2) knowledge/interest in ParkRx, (3) barriers and resources needed to implement PA counseling and ParkRx programs, and (4) differences in primary versus secondary HCPs. Methods: An e-survey administered in Spring/Summer 2018 to HCPs in 3 states examined study objectives. Results: Respondents (n = 278) were mostly primary (58.3%) HCPs. The majority asked about patient PA habits and offered PA counseling (mean = 5.0, SD = 1.5; mean = 4.8, SD = 1.5), but few provided written prescriptions (mean = 2.5, SD = 1.6). Providers were satisfied with their PA counseling knowledge (mean = 3.8, SD = 1.0) but not with prescribing practices (mean = 3.2, SD = 1.1). Secondary HCPs placed higher importance (P = .012) and provided significantly more written PA prescriptions (P = .005). Time was a common barrier to prescribing PA (mean = 3.4, SD = 1.2), though more so for primary HCPs (P = .000). Although few HCPs knew about ParkRx programs, 81.6% expressed interest. Access to park information and community partnerships was an important resource for program implementation. Conclusions: HCPs underutilize PA prescriptions. Despite little awareness, HCPs were interested in ParkRx programs.