Search Results

Background: There are many benefits associated with engaging in strength physical activity. Many studies did not examine the engagement of strength activity among wearable device users. This study aimed to examine the association between wearable device usage and engagement of strength activity in free-living settings using nationally representative data. Methods: A total of 8250 adult wearable device users and nonusers from 8 states of the 2017 Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance System were included in analysis. Multiple regression models were performed to determine the association between the dependent variables of strength activities and the independent variable of wearable devices. Results: Wearable device users were 1.26 (95% confidence interval, 1.01–1.81) times the odds of nonusers in engaging in strength activity. Users also had higher odds of meeting both the strength and aerobic physical activity guidelines than nonusers (odds ratio = 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.07–2.06; adjusted odds ratio = 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.02–2.00). No associations were found between wearable device utilization and frequency of strength activity per week. Conclusion: Wearable device users were more likely to engage in strength activity than nonusers. However, additional studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of wearable devices in promoting strength activity.

The purpose of this study was to explore the current levels of physical activity among youth with disabilities using meta-analysis. The search identified 11 publications including 729 participants (age 4–20 yr). The overall effect size for 11 studies was Hedges g = 0.60 (SE = 0.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.24, 0.96], p < .05, k = 11) using a random-effects model. The findings suggest that differences in physical activity levels between youth with and without disabilities are complex. Results indicated that youth without disabilities engaged in higher levels of physical activity of moderate to vigorous intensity (g = 0.66, SE = 0.18, p < .05). However, no differences were found in light-intensity physical activity (g = −0.03, SE = 0.16, p > .85). Results also suggested that the differences in physical activity between youth with and without disabilities were affected by age (<12 yr, g = 0.83, SE = 0.24, 95% CI [0.37, 1.29], p < .05, and >13 yr, g = 0.37, SE = 0.10, 95% CI [0.18, 0.57], p < .05; Q value = 3.20, df = 1, p < .05), with children with disabilities engaging in less physical activity than children without disabilities in younger ages. Differences in physical activity level between youth with and without disabilities are functions of intensity of physical activity and age but may not be of type of disability (Q value = 0.22, df = 1, p > .6).

Background: The current physical activity guidelines recommend engagement in strength activities at least 2 days per week. Currently, there is a lack of literature examining strength activities among people with disabilities. The purpose of this study is to estimate and compare the prevalence of engagement in strength activities and adherence to strength activity guidelines among adults with and without disabilities in the United States. Methods: A total of 1,005,644 adults (18–80 y old) with and without disabilities from the 2013 to 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System were included in this secondary data analysis. Descriptive analyses were performed to describe the prevalence of strength activity behaviors of adults with and without disabilities. Logistic and Poisson regression models were performed to evaluate the relative contribution of disability status on strength activity behaviors. Results: A higher proportion of participants without disabilities (46.42%, 95% CI, 46.18–46.65) reported engaging in strength activities compared with participants with disabilities (30.68%, 95% CI, 30.29–31.08; P < .01). Participants with disabilities were less likely to engage in strength activities (odds ratio = 0.51, 95% CI, 0.50–0.52; adjusted odds ratio = 0.75, 95% CI, 0.73–0.77) and meet strength activity guidelines (odds ratio = 0.56, 95% CI, 0.54–0.57; adjusted odds ratio = 0.75, 95% CI, 0.73–0.77) than participants without disabilities. Conclusion: Experiencing a disability is associated with lower engagement in strength activities; thus, it is important to identify effective and efficient approaches to promoting strength activities among people with disabilities.