Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for
- Author: Marie Löf x
- Refine by Access: All Content x
Christine Delisle Nyström, Christel Larsson, Christina Alexandrou, Bettina Ehrenblad, Ulf Eriksson, Marita Friberg, Maria Hagströmer, Anna Karin Lindroos, Gisela Nyberg, and Marie Löf
Christine Delisle Nyström, Christel Larsson, Bettina Ehrenblad, Hanna Eneroth, Ulf Eriksson, Marita Friberg, Maria Hagströmer, Anna Karin Lindroos, John J. Reilly, and Marie Löf
Background:
The 2016 Swedish Report Card on Physical Activity (PA) for Children and Youth is a unique compilation of the existing physical and health related data in Sweden. The aim of this article is to summarize the procedure and results from the report card.
Methods:
Nationally representative surveys and individual studies published between 2005–2015 were included. Eleven PA and health indicators were graded using the Active Healthy Kids Canada grading system. Grades were assigned based on the percentage of children/youth meeting a defined benchmark (A: 81% to 100%, B: 61% to 80%, C: 41% to 60%, D: 21% to 40%, F: 0% to 20%, or incomplete (INC).
Results:
The assigned grades were Overall Physical Activity, D; Organized Sport Participation, B+; Active Play, INC; Active Transportation, C+; Sedentary Behaviors, C; Family and Peers, INC; School, C+; Community and the Built Environment, B; Government Strategies and Investments, B; Diet, C-; and Obesity, D.
Conclusions:
The included data provides some support that overall PA is too low and sedentary behavior is too high for almost all age groups in Sweden, even with the many national policies as well as an environment that is favorable to the promotion of PA.
Saud Abdulaziz Alomairah, Signe de Place Knudsen, Caroline Borup Roland, Ida-Marie Hergel, Stig Molsted, Tine D. Clausen, Ellen Løkkegaard, Jane M. Bendix, Ralph Maddison, Marie Löf, Jakob Eg Larsen, Gerrit van Hall, and Bente Stallknecht
Background: Activity trackers and the Pregnancy Physical Activity Questionnaire (PPAQ) measures physical activity (PA) and sedentary time (SED). However, none of these tools have been validated against a criterion method in pregnancy. We aimed to compare a consumer activity tracker and the Danish version of PPAQ (PPAQ-DK) and to validate them using the doubly labeled water technique (DLW) as criterion method. Methods: A total of 220 healthy pregnant women participated. Total energy expenditure (TEE), PA energy expenditure (PAEE), and PA level were determined at gestational Weeks 28–29 using DLW and a Garmin Vivosport (Garmin, Olathe, KS) activity tracker. In addition, PAEE, moderate-to-vigorous intensity PA, and SED were determined using the activity tracker and PPAQ-DK during all three trimesters. Results: TEE from the activity tracker and DLW correlated (r = .63; p < .001), but the activity tracker overestimated TEE (503 kcal/day). Also, the activity tracker overestimated PAEE (303 kcal/day) and PA level compared with DLW. Likewise, PPAQ-DK overestimated PAEE (1,513 kcal/day) compared with DLW. Compared to PPAQ-DK, the activity tracker reported lower values of PAEE and moderate-to-vigorous intensity PA and higher values of SED during all three trimesters. Conclusions: When compared to DLW, we found better agreement of PAEE estimates from the activity tracker than from PPAQ-DK. TEE from the tracker and DLW correlated moderately well, but this was not the case for PAEE or PA level. The activity tracker measured lower PA and higher SED than PPAQ-DK throughout pregnancy. The consumer activity tracker performed better than the questionnaire, but both significantly overestimated PA compared to DLW.
