Journal of Public Health | Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 316 –322 | doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdv032 | Advance Access Publication March 19, 2015
Factors affecting school physical education provision
in England: a cross-sectional analysis
J.R.F. Greenfield1,2, M. Almond3, G.P. Clarke3, K.L. Edwards1
1
Academic Orthopaedics Trauma and Sports Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Floor C, West Block, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK
UFR STAPS, Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne, 51100 Reims, France
School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK
Address correspondence to Julia R.F. Greenfield, E-mail: julia.greenfi[email protected]; julia.greenfi[email protected]
2
3
A B S T R AC T
Background Attitudes towards physical activity are largely developed during childhood meaning that school physical education classes can have a
strong influence.
Methods National level data of school pupils (n ¼ 21 515) in England were analysed to examine the association between school provision of
physical education with sex, age, geographic and socioeconomic factors.
Results Children attending independent schools had more scheduled physical education time (P , 0.001; 95% confidence interval (CI) 18 to 30
extra min per week). This association was true for males (P ¼ 0.024); schools located in the South (P , 0.001; 95% CI 2 to 3) and rural areas
(P , 0.001; 95% CI 3 to 5); or with a higher percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals (P , 0.001; 95% CI 3 to 4). Schools in more
affluent areas (P , 0.001; 95% CI 21 to 22) and those with lower percentages of pupils from ethnic minorities (P , 0.001; 95% CI 21 to 22)
also had higher minutes of physical education provision per week. Regarding age, 93% of schools met the guidelines in Years 1– 9; only 45% did
in Years 10–13.
Conclusion Differences in physical education were found in relation to school type, socioeconomic status and geographical factors. Age-related
differences in compliance with guidelines are of concern; ways to increase provision for older children should be investigated.
Keywords age, deprivation, England, physical education provision, sex, school type
Introduction
Lack of physical activity (PA) can have adverse health effects.
Childhood inactivity is associated with several co-morbidities,
including obesity, higher cardiovascular risk factors, mental
health problems and type 2 diabetes.1 Positive childhood PA
attitudes are associated with increased adulthood PA.2,3
Children aged 5–18 in England are advised by government
guidelines to partake in at least 60 min of moderate to vigorous
physical activity (MVPA) daily and minimize the amount of
time spent sitting (sedentary activity).4 Certain research5 – 7 has
highlighted the importance of physical education in schools to
maintain a child’s enthusiasm and encourage positive attitudes
towards PA as part of a healthy lifestyle, a concept addressed
by the SPARK project.8 Current government guidelines for
English schools state that at least 120 min of physical education should be timetabled into a pupil’s week.9
316
Current research, in the UK and worldwide, suggests that
children are insufficiently active throughout the day. This has
been shown to be more widespread across the female population than for males,5,10 with age having a further negative effect
on PA levels.11,12 The Health Survey for England from 2008
shows that only 14% of females and 28% of males undertook
at least 60 min of PA per day;13,14 and other recent research
indicates that as much as 50% of children do not adhere to
these recommendations.10,15,16 Furthermore, a recent editorial17
J.R.F. Greenfield, Intern, Arthritis Research UK Centre for Sport Exercise and
Osteoarthritis
M. Almond, PhD Student
G.P. Clarke, Professor of Business Geography
K.L. Edwards, Course Director for Sports and Exercise Medicine
# The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Faculty of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected].
FAC TO RS A F F EC TI N G SC H O O L P H Y S I CA L ED U CATI O N
outlined the importance of physical education in schools for
promoting of an active lifestyle, stating that schools need to
place a greater emphasis on its importance.
The postulated factors affecting PA levels18 include socioeconomic status,19 – 21 surrounding area,22 – 24 region21 and ethnicity.25 Children tend to be more active during the week, and
the school they attend, along with the nature and frequency of
physical education lessons and extracurricular activities, influences their overall activity level,26,27 as do the number of extracurricular sports clubs available and the school facilities.28 – 33
Children with more structured sport, physical education lessons
and active travel accumulate more MVPA, and compulsory
physical education lessons have been found to be more effective
at reducing childhood adiposity than voluntary ones.34,35
This study seeks to provide new analyses of childhood PA
in schools in England. The aims are to examine the association between school provision of timetabled physical education classes with age and sex of the children and with
school-level factors: urban/rural, region, pupil ethnic mix, deprivation and socioeconomic status.
Methods
School-level data were collected from the majority of primary
and secondary schools in England across all year groups
(Years 1– 13).
Data sources
The school-level data were obtained from the Physical
Education and Sport Survey 2009/10 (http://data.gov.uk/
dataset/pe-and-sport-survey-2009-10). This is a national data
set containing PA information from 21 515 schools in
England. This study concentrated on timetabled physical education. Each school was anonymized.
The PA data used in this study were the number of minutes
per week pupils spent doing timetabled physical education,
stratified by sex and year group (a weighted average by pupil
count across all school years). These data were categorized
into whether each school met the guidelines (120 min or
more of timetabled physical education per week) or not.
Extracurricular or after-school activities were not taken into
account.
Data were also collected on the following: the Index of
Multiple Deprivation35,36 of the school location (low ,13;
medium and high 26), percentage of children eligible for
free school meals (low ,7%; medium and high 20%),
ethnic minority background (i.e. are/not British Caucasian)
(low ,4%; medium and high 12%), urbanicity (urban/
rural) and region (North/South) (determined using the
Severn Wash line) (Ref. 37; number of pupils by year group).
317
Data analyses
The school-level data were used to investigate the association
between school provision of physical education during school
hours, adjusted for free school meal status, ethnic mix, urbanicity (urban/rural), region (North/South) and school location deprivation, as well as whether schools met the physical
education guidelines. The schools’ characteristics were
described and the mean minutes of timetabled physical education per week were calculated for each school, which were
stratified by sex and age (year group). These data were used
to determine the percentage of schools meeting the
schools physical education guidelines (i.e. minimum of 2 h of
timetabled physical education per week). Differences were
evaluated using unpaired t-test or x 2 as appropriate to data
type. A linear regression model was built, with total school
physical education minutes per week as the outcome and
percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals, ethnic
mix, urban/rural, region and school area deprivation as predictor variables.
Data were analysed using Microsoft Excel and IBM SPSS
Statistics 19. Ethical approval was obtained from the
University of Nottingham Medical School Research Ethics
Committee.
Results
The Physical Education and Sport Survey (2009/10) collected
data from a total of 21 515 schools encompassing 98% of all
state schools in England.9 These data represent 6.5 million
children, roughly 9% of pupils from Years 1 – 11 and 3%
of pupils staying on for A-level study (in Years 12 and 13).
The mean number of pupils per school was 306 (standard
deviation 340).
Schools had a slightly higher percentage of males than
females (51%:49% of pupils). Forty-two per cent of schools
had a high percentage of pupils from ethnic minorities and
33% had a high percentage of pupils eligible for free school
meals. Seventy-three per cent of schools were located in
urban areas (x2ð2Þ ¼ 1:03, P ¼ 0.596), 49% in the North and
29% in areas of high deprivation. (See Supplementary data,
Appendix Table A1).
The mean number of minutes of timetabled physical education per week was calculated for each year group by sex
(Fig. 1). These data show that, in total, males had marginally
higher physical education time: 125.4 (30.1) min per week
mean (standard deviation) for males, compared with 124.7
(29.8) min for females (P ¼ 0.024). No statistically significant
differences are apparent between genders during primary
school years (Years 1 – 6; P . 0.05). From Years 7 through
12, however, males average significantly more minutes of
318
J O U RN A L O F P U B LI C H E A LT H
Table 1 Summary of schools’ characteristics
State schools
Number (%) of schools
21 436 (99.6%)
Mean number (standard deviation) of pupils per school
Independent schools
79 (0.4%)
All schools
21 515 (100%)
306 (340)
345 (375)
306 (340)
Number (%) of male pupils
3.3 m (51%)
15.1k (45%)
3.3 m (51%)
Number (%) of female pupils
3.2 m (49%)
12.2k (55%)
3.2 m (49%)
Number (%) of schools with a low ethnic mix (high proportion white pupils)
5093 (24%)
64 (81%)
5157 (24%)
Number (%) of schools with a medium ethnic mix
7364 (34%)
5 (6%)
7368 (34%)
Number (%) of schools with a high ethnic mix
8930 (42%)
10 (13%)
8940 (42%)
Number (%) of schools with a low percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals
6484 (30%)
67 (85%)
6551 (30%)
7806 (36%)
Number (%) of schools with a medium percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals
7803 (36%)
3 (4%)
Number (%) of schools with a high percentage of pupils eligible for free school meals
7100 (33%)
9 (11%)
7109 (33%)
15 527 (72%)
61 (77%)
15 588 (73%)
Number (%) of schools in urban area
Number (%) of schools in rural area
5857 (27%)
18 (23%)
5875 (27%)
Number (%) of schools located in the North
10 588 (49%)
30 (38%)
10 618 (49%)
Number (%) of schools located in the South
10 357 (48%)
47 (59%)
8286 (39%)
40 (51%)
8326 (38%)
Number (%) of schools in an area of medium deprivation
6883 (32%)
23 (29%)
6909 (32%)
Number (%) of schools in an area of high deprivation
6218 (29%)
16 (20%)
6234 (29%)
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
r3
Ye
ar
4
Ye
ar
5
Ye
ar
6
Ye
ar
7
Ye
ar
8
Ye
ar
Ye 9
ar
10
Ye
ar
1
Ye 1
ar
1
Ye 2
ar
Al 13
ly
ea
rs
Ye
a
Ye
a
Ye
a
r2
0
r1
Mean physical education time (min)
10 310 (48%)
Number (%) of schools in an area of low deprivation (i.e. affluent area)
Girls
Boys
Total
Fig. 1 Summary of mean minutes and standard deviation (error bars) of timetabled physical activity per week by year group and sex.
physical education per week than females (P , 0.05), but absolute mean differences are ,5 min per week. Within
Year 13 pupils, males still averaged more education per week
than females (4 min per week), but this difference was not
significant (P ¼ 0.081)
Across both sexes, there was a drop off in the mean
amount of timetabled physical education in Years 10 and 11
(GCSE students in England) with a further large fall (roughly
50%) in Years 12 and 13 (A-level students in England).
The majority (83%) of schools met the guidelines for physical education provision (two or more hours per week); see
Fig. 2. When these data are broken down by year group, the
results are of more concern. For Years 1 –7, 90% or more
of schools meet the guidelines. This figure starts to drop in
Year 8, and by Years 10 –11, only 59 and 56% of schools,
respectively, meet the guidelines. This falls further in Years
12– 13 (24 and 23%, respectively).
The multiple linear regression model showed a modest predictive power (R 2 ¼ 0.017) (P , 0.001) (see Table 2). The
percentage of pupils from ethnic minorities was negatively
associated with physical education minutes (schools with
more children from ethnic minorities offered less physical
FAC TO RS A F F EC TI N G SC H O O L P H Y S I CA L ED U CATI O N
319
Percentage of schools meeting the
guidelines
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year All
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 12
13 years
Fig. 2 Summary of percentage of schools meeting the physical education provision guidelines by year group.
Table 2 Summary of linear regression results showing the influence of
school type, socioeconomic and geographical factors on a pupil’s
likelihood to reach the target number of minutes of physical education
per week
Model
School type
B
P-value
95% CI
95% CI
lower limit
upper limit
23.66
,0.001
17.79
3.25
,0.001
2.67
3.84
21.54
,0.001
22.10
20.98
Region (North/South)
2.53
,0.001
1.85
3.20
Urbanicity (urban/rural)
4.12
,0.001
3.23
5.02
21.73
,0.001
22.24
21.23
Free school meals
Deprivation
Ethnic mix
29.53
education), as was the location of the school (the more deprived
the area, the less the level of physical education). All the other
variables had a positive relationship, with the largest effect being
due to school type (that is, more timetabled physical education
for those in the South or rural areas and those schools with a
higher proportion of pupils receiving free school meals). There
were no collinearity problems with the model.
Discussion
Main findings of this study
This study showed that the school that children attend affects
physical education provision during the school day. Also, provision of timetabled physical education in schools reduced
dramatically from Year 10 and was very low for Years 12– 13,
with the majority of schools not meeting the government’s
recommendations for physical education provision for these
older year groups. Current government policy recommends
that children in this age bracket undertake at least 2 h of moderate to vigorous PA per day. By reducing physical education
time at schools, the chances of young people reaching the
individual PA target may be lowered, with corresponding illhealth implications. This is particularly noticeable during the
latter school years where more pressure is placed on adolescents
to achieve good results in their exams; interestingly, this is somewhat contradictory to some recent research38,39 suggesting a
positive relationship between PA and academic performance.
Schools located in more affluent areas had higher physical
education provision, as did schools located in the South
and Rural areas and those with a lower proportion of pupils
from ethnic minorities; this concurs with the existing literature around proxies for socioeconomic status.19 – 21,23,40
Conflictingly perhaps, the data showed that schools with more
children eligible to receive free school meals (which might be
expected to typically be more deprived) offered more physical
education, yet schools located in more deprived areas offered
less physical education. This difference may be explained by
school catchment areas in England, which, particularly for secondary schools, can be very large; thus, the school location is
not necessarily a close reflection of the pupils’ residential deprivation scores.41 However, it should be noted that the regression model showed that these factors had only a small impact
on physical education provision (in absolute minutes per week),
implying that other factors were more influential.
Males were found to partake in significantly more physical education time than females in secondary schools, albeit
,5 min per week. This imbalance may be due to differences
in physical education provision between boys-only and girlsonly schools; however, this factor was not addressed in the
present study. All schools showed large reduction in physical
education provision from Year 10 upwards, coinciding with
GCSE and A-level exams.
320
J O U RN A L O F P U B LI C H E A LT H
What is already known on this topic
13,14
The Health Survey for England 2008
states that habitual
PA levels of children are higher in males than in females,42,43
which is similar to the results in this study for secondary
school pupils with respect to physical education. Nonetheless,
physical education time is reduced substantially with age,
which has been reported elsewhere.44 – 49 It is questionable
whether physical education time is shortened to allow more
time for students’ examinable subjects, besides those who
choose to do a GCSE or A level in physical education, as
schools have league tables and need to compete for high rankings. Funding for facilities and human resources are also likely
to be barriers to increasing provision.
similar studies,32,52,53 and those data were collected using validated questionnaires. The authors note that school provision
of physical education is not equivalent to actual school-day
PA: children may miss a class; part of a lesson inherently
includes some non-active time, such as changing or receiving
instruction or feedback28,29 (which could exceed time for PA
in physical education lessons) and PA during non-timetabled
school day activities are excluded. The cross-sectional nature
of the study means that causal inference cannot be made.
Nevertheless, this study allows for an accurate indication of
the nation’s children’s ability to meet the government’s physical education recommendations in particular in state schools.
This study is the first of its kind (to the authors’ knowledge)
which covers a nationwide set of schools in this manner.
What this study adds
This study adds to the evidence regarding school physical
education provision, utilizing a national data set. It is, as far as
the authors are aware, the most comprehensive study to
examine physical education provision across England. This
study showed that the school that children attend affects physical education provision during the school day.
This is not the whole story—it is also important to look at
children’s habitual PA levels (which this study did not do), and
these also vary by gender and age. In particular, more interventions are needed to increase the PA levels of adolescents
over the whole day, but time at school is a large, and important, part of this. Given we suspect that PA habits developed
during childhood continue into adulthood,2,3,50 these differences between children could have long-term health, social
and economic implications.
We found that school provision of physical education was
associated with numerous factors; however, the relationship
was not causal. It may be that low activity levels in school are
compensated for during leisure time. This hypothesis should
be further investigated in future studies, with a particular interest in the adolescent age group. Sedentary behaviour has been
shown to be a better predictor of the development of physical
inactivity-related diseases, such as obesity and heart disease,16
than PA, and such methods should be considered as a favourable alternative in future research for assessing a child’s time
spent active versus inactive. Furthermore, the distribution of
active/inactive time should be reviewed as periodic daily activity
has been shown to be more beneficial than one large bout of
exercise followed by a long bout of inactivity.51
Conclusions
Limitations of this study
References
The strengths of this study are that the analyses were based
on a substantial national data set with excellent response rates
for state schools in England, at the top end of previous
This study found that males participated in more PA during a
day than females. Adolescents in all types of school were
worryingly short-changed on PA provision, possibly encouraging poor attitudes towards PA; the repercussions of which
may bring about higher chances of compromised health in
later life. The school environment provides a good opportunity to influence children’s PA and create positive attitudes
towards PA and sport. More needs to be done to enable our
teenagers to be more active during the school day and therefore promote good health and well-being, which will have
benefits in the long term. While we see high levels of timetabled physical education in younger years, by adolescence the
proportions of schools meeting guidelines are dramatically
low. These findings should add to the evidence to investigate
schools’ PA provision for adolescences and investigate ways,
whether voluntary or legislative, to increase provision.
Funding
This study was supported financially by the Arthritis Research
UK Centre for Sport, Exercise and Osteoarthritis (Grant reference 20194) through the Internship Scheme; University of
Nottingham; Economic and Social Research Council and the
Medical Research Council.
Supplementary data
Supplementary data are available at PUBMED online.
1 Department of Health. At Least Five a Week: Evidence on the Impact of
Physical Activity and Its Relationship to Health. London: Department of
Health, 2004,120.
FAC TO RS A F F EC TI N G SC H O O L P H Y S I CA L ED U CATI O N
321
2 Cleland V, Dwyer T, Venn A. Which domains of childhood physical
activity predict physical activity in adulthood? A 20-Year prospective
tracking study. Br J Sports Med 2012;46:595– 602.
20 Gordon-Larsen P, Nelson MC, Page P et al. Inequality in the built environment underlies key health disparities in physical activity and
obesity. Pediatric 2006;117:417– 24.
3 Jose KA, Blizzard L, Dwyer T et al. Childhood and adolescent predictors of leisure time physical activity during the transition from adolescence to adulthood: a population based cohort study. Int J Behav Nutr
Phys Act 2011;8:54.
21 Wilkin TJ, Mallam KM, Metcalf BS et al. Variation in physical
activity lies with the child, not his environment: evidence for an
‘activitystat’ in young children (EarlyBird 16). Int J Obes 2006;30:
1050 – 5.
4 Department of Health. Physical Activity Guidelines for Children and Young
People. London: Department of Health, 2011.
22 Kristjandottir G, Vilhjalmsson R. Sociodemographic differences in
patterns of sedentary and physically active behavior in older children
and adolescents. Acta paediatr 2001;90:429 – 35.
5 Aaron DJ, Stortt KL, Robertson RJ et al. Longitudinal study of the
number and choice of leisure time physical activities from mid to late
adolescence: implications for school curricula and community recreation programs. Arch Pediatr 2002;156:1075– 80.
6 Sallis JF, McKenzie TL. Physical education’s role in public health. Res
Q Exerc Sport 1991;62:124 –37.
7 Bailey R, Armour K, Kirk D et al. The educational benefits for physical education and school sport: an academic review. Res Paper Educ
2009;24:1 – 27.
8 Sallis JF, McKenzie TL, Kolody B et al. Effects of a health-related
physical education on academic achievement: Project SPARK. Res Q
Exerc Sport 1991;70:127 – 34.
9 Department for Education. Statistics: School and School Pupil Numbers.
2013. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/schools-pupilsand-their-characteristics-january-2013 (26 August 2013, date last
accessed).
10 Griffiths LJ, Cortina-Borja M, Sera F et al. How active are our children? Findings from the millennium cohort study. BMJ Open
2013;3:e002893.
11 Thompson AM, Baxter-Jones AD, Mirwald RL et al. Comparison of
physical activity in male and female children: does maturation matter?
Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003;35:1684 – 90.
12 Nader PR, Bradley RH, Houts RM et al. Moderate-to-vigorous
physical activity from ages 9 to 15 years. J Am Med Assoc 2008;300:
295 – 305.
13 Craig R, Mindell J, Hirani V. The NHS Information Centre for Health and Social
Care Health Survey for England – 2008, Volume 1 Physical Activity and Fitness
[NS]. [Online]. 2009. www.hscic.gov.uk (23 June 2014, date late accessed).
14 Sleap M, Tolfrey K. Do 9- to 12 year-old children meet existing physical activity recommendations for health? Med Sci Sports Exerc 2001;
33:591– 6.
15 Limb M. Children’s lifestyles pose ‘unacceptable’ cardiovascular risk,
warns charity. BMJ 2013;347:f5100.
16 Warburton DER, Nicol CW, Bredin SSD. Healthier benefits of physical activity: the evidence. CMAJ 2006;174:801 – 9.
23 Joens-Matre RR, Welk GJ, Calabro MA et al. Rural – urban differences
in physical activity, physical fitness, and overweight prevalence of children. Overweight Obes 2008;24:49– 54.
24 Wheeler BW, Cooper AR, Page AS et al. Greenspace and children’s
physical activity: a GPS/GIS analysis of the PEACH project. Prev
Med 2010;51:148– 52.
25 Brodersen N, Steptoe A, Boniface DR et al. Trends in physical activity
and sedentary behaviour in adolescence: ethnic and socioeconomic
differences. BJSM 2007;41:140– 4.
26 Griew P, Page A, Thomas S et al. The school effect on children’s
school time physical activity: the peach project. Prev Med 2010;
51:282– 6.
27 Trayers T, Cooper AR, Riddoch CJ et al. Do children from an inner
city British school meet the recommended levels of physical activity?
Results from a cross sectional survey using objective measurements
of physical activity. Arch Dis Child 2006;91:175– 6.
28 Fairclough S, Stratton G. Physical education makes you fit and
healthy. Physical education’s contribution to young people’s physical
activity levels. Health Educ Res 2005;20:14– 23.
29 Mersh R, Fairclough SJ. Physical activity, lesson context and teacher
behaviours within the revised english national curriculum for physical
education: a case study of one school. Eur Phys Educ Rev 2010;16:
29 – 45.
30 Senne T, Rowe D, Boswell B et al. Factors associated with adolescent
physical activity during middle school physical education: a one-year
case study. Eur Phys Educ Rev 2009;15:295 – 314.
31 Durant N, Harris SK, Doyle S et al. Relation of school environment
and policy to adolescent physical activity. J Sch Health 2009;79:153 – 9;
quiz 205 – 6.
32 Kirby J, Levin KA, Inchley J. Associations between the school environment and adolescent females’ physical activity. Health Educ Res
2012;27:101– 14.
33 Trudeau F, Shephard RJ. Contribution of school programmes to
physical activity levels and attitudes in children and adults. Sports Med
2005;35:89– 105.
17 Weiler R, Allardyce S, Whyte GP et al. Is the lack of physical activity
strategy for children complicit mass child neglect? BJSM 2014;48:
1010 – 3.
34 Goodman A, Mackett RL, Paskins J. Activity compensation and activity synergy in British 8– 13 year olds. Prev Med 2011;53:293 – 8.
18 Inchley JC, Currie DB, Todd JM et al. Persistent socio-demographic
differences in physical activity among scottish schoolchildren 1990 –
2002. Eur J Public Health 2005;15:386 – 8.
35 Connelly JB, Duaso MJ, Butler G. A systematic review of controlled
trials of interventions to prevent childhood obesity and overweight: a
realistic synthesis of the evidence. Public Health 2007;121:510– 7.
19 Brodersen NH, Steptoe A, Williamson S et al. Sociodemographic, developmental, environmental, and psychological correlates of physical
activity and sedentary behavior at age 11 to 12. Ann Behav Med 2005;
29:2 – 11.
36 Department for Communities and Local Government. The English
Indices of Deprivation 2010. 2011. http://www.communities.gov.uk/
publications/corporate/statistics/indices2010 (25 June 2014, date
last accessed).
322
J O U RN A L O F P U B LI C H E A LT H
37 Office for National Statistics. UK indices of multiple deprivation – a
way to make comparisons across constituent countries easier. Health
Stat Q 2012;53:22– 73.
38 Hacking JM, Muller S, Buchan IE. Trends in mortality from 1965 to
2008 across the English north-south divide: comparative observational study. BMJ 2011;342:d508.
late teenage to adulthood: an 8-year follow-up study. J Intern Med
1993;234:309– 15.
46 Dovey SM, Reeder AI, Chalmers DJ. Continuity and change in sporting and leisure time physical activities during adolescence. Br J Sports
Med 1998;32:53– 7.
39 Centre for Disease and Prevention. The Association Between School Based
Physical Education, and Academic Performance. Atlanta, GA: Department
of health and human services, 2010.
47 Boreham C, Twisk J, van Mechelen W et al. Relationships between the
development of biological risk factors for coronary heart disease and
lifestyle parameters during adolescence: the Northern Ireland Young
Hearts Project. Public Health 1999;113:7 – 12.
40 Singh A, Uijtdewilligen L, Jos WR et al. Physical activity and
performance at school. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2012;166:
49 – 55.
48 Kim J. Are physical education-related state policies and schools’ physical education requirement related to children’s physical activity and
obesity? J Sch Health 2012;82:268 – 76.
41 Macintyre S, Mutrie N. Socio-economic differences in cardiovascular
disease and physical activity: stereotypes and reality. J Roy Soc Prom
Health 2004;124:66– 9.
49 Telama R, Yang X. Decline of physical activity from youth to young
adulthood in Finland. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000;32:1617 – 22.
42 Drummer TJ, Gibbon MA, Hackett AF et al. Is overweight and
obesity in 9– 10-year-old children in Liverpool related to deprivation
and/or electoral ward when based on school attended? Public Health
Nutr 2005;8(6):636– 41.
43 Sallis JF, Prochaska JJ, Taylor WC et al. Correlates of physical activity
in a national sample of girls and boys in Grades 4 through 12. Health
Psychol 1999;18:410– 5.
50 van Mechelen W, Twisk JW, Post GB et al. Physical activity of young
people: the Amsterdam Longitudinal Growth and Health Study. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 2000;32:1610 – 6.
51 Kjonniksen L, Fjortoft I, Wold B. Attitude to physical education and
participation in organized youth sports during adolescence related to
physical activity in young adulthood: a 10-year longitudinal study. Eur
Phys Educ Rev 2009;15:139 – 54.
44 Trost SG, Pate RR, Sallis JF et al. Age and gender differences in objectively measured physical activity in youth. Med Sci Sports Ex
2002;34:350– 5.
52 Malele SE, Jones GL, Walters SJ. Physical activity among adolescents
and barriers to delivering physical education in cornwall and lancashire, UK: a qualitative study of heads of pe and heads of schools.
BMC Public Health 2008;8:273.
45 Andersen LB, Haraldsdottir J. Tracking of cardiovascular disease risk
factors including maximal oxygen uptake and physical activity from
53 Keresztes N, Piko BF, Pluhar ZF et al. Social influences in sports activity among adolescents. J Roy Soc Prom Health 2008;128:21– 5.