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.
Tanya Tripathi, Stacey C. Dusing, Peter E. Pidcoe, Yaoying Xu, Mary S. Shall and Daniel L. Riddle
Aims: The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends “parents to incorporate supervised, awake ‘prone play’ in their infant’s routine to support motor development and minimize the risk of plagiocephaly”. The purpose of this feasibility study was to compare usual care to a reward contingency–based intervention, developed to increase prone tolerance and improve motor skills. Methods: Ten full-term infants, 3–6- months old, with poor prone tolerance were randomized to either the Education group or Reward contingency group. Each group participated in three parent education sessions and 15 intervention sessions, over the period of three weeks. Infants in the Reward contingency group used the Prone Play Activity Center, a technology developed to reinforce motor behavior of infants in prone position. Intervention frequency and parent feedback data determined the feasibility of the interventions. Results: Infants in the Reward contingency group practiced a median of 12 of the 15 anticipated intervention sessions in the Prone Play Activity Center. These infants used the device for a mean of 18 minutes per day. Parents of infants in the Education group practiced a median of 10 sessions of the 15 anticipated intervention sessions. Conclusion: The reward contingency–based intervention is feasible for use in a future clinical trial with some modifications.
Charlotte Skau Pawlowski, Henriette Bondo Andersen and Jasper Schipperijn
Background: It remains unclear if schoolyard interventions “just” provide more opportunities for those children who are already active. The authors wanted to investigate schoolyard use and physical activity (PA) among the least-active children during recess following schoolyard renewals. Methods: An intervention study design with preresults and postresults comparison was used. Accelerometer and global positioning system data were collected at 6 Danish schools from 553 children at baseline and 439 after renewals (grades 4–9). Based on mean minutes of recess moderate to vigorous PA per child per school, the least-active children were defined as all children in the lowest activity quartile at baseline and follow-up, respectively. Results: One hundred and thirty-five children (70% girls) at baseline and 108 (76% girls) at follow-up were categorized as the least-active children. At follow-up they accumulated more time (12.1 min/d) and PA (4.4 min/d) in the schoolyard during recess compared with baseline. The difference in schoolyard PA found for the least-active children was relatively small compared with the difference for all children. Conclusions: Solely improving the physical schoolyard environment seemed to have limited impact on the least-active children’s PA. Future studies should investigate the complex interrelations between the least-active children and the entire schoolyard environment.