Background: Government responses to managing the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted the way individuals were able to engage in physical activity. Digital platforms are a promising way to support physical activity levels and may have provided an alternative for people to maintain their activity while at home. Objective: This study aimed to examine associations between the use of digital platforms and adherence to the physical activity guidelines among Australian adults and adolescents during the COVID-19 stay-at-home restrictions in April and May 2020. Methods: A national online survey was distributed in May 2020. Participants included 1188 adults (mean age 37.4 years, SD 15.1; 980/1188, 82.5% female) and 963 adolescents (mean age 16.2 years, SD 1.2; 685/963, 71.1% female). Participants reported demographic characteristics, use of digital platforms for physical activity over the previous month, and adherence to moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA) and muscle-strengthening exercise (MSE) guidelines. Multilevel logistic regression models examined differences in guideline adherence between those who used digital platforms (ie, users) to support their physical activity compared to those who did not (ie, nonusers). Results: Digital platforms include streaming services for exercise (eg, YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook); subscriber fitness programs, via an app or online (eg, Centr and MyFitnessPal); facilitated online live or recorded classes, via platforms such as Zoom (eg, dance, sport training, and fitness class); sport- or activity-specific apps designed by sporting organizations for participants to keep up their skills (eg, TeamBuildr); active electronic games (eg, Xbox Kinect); and/or online or digital training or racing platforms (eg, Zwift, FullGaz, and Rouvy). Overall, 39.5% (469/1188) of adults and 26.5% (255/963) of adolescents reported using digital platforms for physical activity. Among adults, MVPA (odds ratio [OR] 2.0, 95% CI 1.5-2.7), MSE (OR 3.3, 95% CI 2.5-4.5), and combined (OR 2.7, 95% CI 2.0-3.8) guideline adherence were higher among digital platform users relative to nonusers. Adolescents’ MVPA (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.3-4.3), MSE (OR 3.1, 95% CI 2.1-4.4), and combined (OR 4.3, 95% CI 2.1-9.0) guideline adherence were also higher among users of digital platforms relative to nonusers. Conclusions: Digital platform users were more likely than nonusers to meet MVPA and MSE guidelines during the COVID-19 stay-at-home restrictions in April and May 2020. Digital platforms may play a critical role in helping to support physical activity engagement when access to facilities or opportunities for physical activity outside the home are restricted.

Independent of physical activity levels, youth sedentary behaviors (SB) have negative health outcomes. SB prevalence estimates during discretionary periods of the day (e.g., after-school), inform the need for targeted period-specific interventions. This systematic review aimed to determine children’s and adolescents’ SB prevalence during the after-school period. A computerized search was conducted in October 2015 (analysed November 2015). Inclusion criteria were: published in a peer-reviewed English journal; participants aged 5-18 years; measured overall after-school sedentary time (ST) objectively, and/or specific after-school SBs (e.g., TV viewing) objectively or subjectively; and provided the percentage of the after-school period spent in ST/SB or duration of behavior and period to calculate this. Where possible, findings were analyzed by location (e.g., after-school care/‘other’ locations). The PRISMA guidelines were followed. Twenty-nine studies were included: 24 included children (≤12 years), four assessed adolescents (>12 years) and one included both; 20 assessed ST and nine assessed SB. On average, children spent 41 % and 51 % of the after-school period in ST when at after-school care and other locations respectively. Adolescents spent 57 % of the after-school period in ST. SBs that children and adolescents perform include: TV viewing (20 % of the period), non-screen based SB (including homework; 20 %), screen-based SB (including TV viewing; 18 %), homework/academics (13 %), motorised transport (12 %), social SB (9 %), and screen-based SB (excluding TV viewing; 6 %). Children spent up to half of the after-school period in ST and this is higher among adolescents. A variety of screen- and non-screen based SBs are performed after school, providing key targets for interventions. PROSPERO registration number CRD42015010437

Accelerometers have been used to determine the amount of time that children spend sedentary. However, as time spent sitting may be detrimental to health, research is needed to examine whether accelerometer sedentary cut-points reflect the amount of time children spend sitting. The aim of this study was to: a) examine agreement between ActiGraph (AG) cut-points for sedentary time and objectively-assessed periods of free-living sitting and sitting plus standing time using the activPAL (aP); and b) identify cut-points to determine time spent sitting and sitting plus standing.

Physical activity (PA) is associated with positive cardio-metabolic health and emerging evidence suggests sedentary behavior (SB) may be detrimental to children's health independent of PA. The primary aim of the Transform-Us! study is to determine whether an 18-month, behavioral and environmental intervention in the school and family settings results in higher levels of PA and lower rates of SB among 8-9 year old children compared with usual practice (post-intervention and 12-months follow-up). The secondary aims are to determine the independent and combined effects of PA and SB on children's cardio-metabolic health risk factors; identify the factors that mediate the success of the intervention; and determine whether the intervention is cost-effective. A four-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a 2 × 2 factorial design, with schools as the unit of randomization. Twenty schools will be allocated to one of four intervention groups, sedentary behavior (SB-I), physical activity (PA-I), combined SB and PA (SB+PA-I) or current practice control (C), which will be evaluated among approximately 600 children aged 8-9 years in school year 3 living in Melbourne, Australia. All children in year 3 at intervention schools in 2010 (8-9 years) will receive the intervention over an 18-month period with a maintenance 'booster' delivered in 2012 and children at all schools will be invited to participate in the evaluation assessments. To maximize the sample and to capture new students arriving at intervention and control schools, recruitment will be on-going up to the post-intervention time point. Primary outcomes are time spent sitting and in PA assessed via accelerometers and inclinometers and survey. To our knowledge, Transform-Us! is the first RCT to examine the effectiveness of intervention strategies for reducing children's overall sedentary time, promoting PA and optimizing health outcomes. The integration of consistent strategies and messages to children from teachers and parents in both school and family settings is a critical component of this study, and if shown to be effective, may have a significant impact on educational policies as well as on pedagogical and parenting practices. ACTRN12609000715279 ; Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN83725066

Background: While the burgeoning researcher and practitioner interest in physical literacy has stimulated new assessment approaches, the optimal tool for assessment among school-aged children remains unclear. Objective: The purpose of this review was to: (i) identify assessment instruments designed to measure physical literacy in school-aged children; (ii) map instruments to a holistic construct of physical literacy (as specified by the Australian Physical Literacy Framework); (iii) document the validity and reliability for these instruments; and (iv) assess the feasibility of these instruments for use in school environments. Design: This systematic review (registered with PROSPERO on 21 August, 2022) was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Data Sources: Reviews of physical literacy assessments in the past 5 years (2017 +) were initially used to identify relevant assessments. Following that, a search (20 July, 2022) in six databases (CINAHL, ERIC, GlobalHealth, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus) was conducted for assessments that were missed/or published since publication of the reviews. Each step of screening involved evaluation from two authors, with any issues resolved through discussion with a third author. Nine instruments were identified from eight reviews. The database search identified 375 potential papers of which 67 full text papers were screened, resulting in 39 papers relevant to a physical literacy assessment. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria: Instruments were classified against the Australian Physical Literacy Framework and needed to have assessed at least three of the Australian Physical Literacy Framework domains (i.e., psychological, social, cognitive, and/or physical). Analyses: Instruments were assessed for five aspects of validity (test content, response processes, internal structure, relations with other variables, and the consequences of testing). Feasibility in schools was documented according to time, space, equipment, training, and qualifications. Results: Assessments with more validity/reliability evidence, according to age, were as follows: for children, the Physical Literacy in Children Questionnaire (PL-C Quest) and Passport for Life (PFL). For older children and adolescents, the Canadian Assessment for Physical Literacy (CAPL version 2). For adolescents, the Adolescent Physical Literacy Questionnaire (APLQ) and Portuguese Physical Literacy Assessment Questionnaire (PPLA-Q). Survey-based instruments were appraised to be the most feasible to administer in schools. Conclusions: This review identified optimal physical literacy assessments for children and adolescents based on current validity and reliability data. Instrument validity for specific populations was a clear gap, particularly for children with disability. While survey-based instruments were deemed the most feasible for use in schools, a comprehensive assessment may arguably require objective measures for elements in the physical domain. If a physical literacy assessment in schools is to be performed by teachers, this may require linking physical literacy to the curriculum and developing teachers’ skills to develop and assess children’s physical literacy.

Summary: Objective: Investigate associations of TV viewing time and accelerometry‐derived sedentary time with inflammatory and endothelial function biomarkers in children.Methods: Cross‐sectional analysis of 164 7–10‐year‐old children. TV viewing time was assessed by parental proxy report and total and patterns of sedentary time accumulation (e.g. prolonged bouts) were assessed by accelerometry. C‐reactive protein (CRP), homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance, interleukin‐2, ‐6, ‐8, ‐10, tumour necrosis factor alpha, adiponectin, resistin, brain‐derived neurotrophic factor, soluble intercellular and vascular adhesion molecule 1, plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 and soluble E‐selectin were assessed. Generalised linear models assessed the associations of TV viewing and sedentary time with biomarkers, adjusting for sex, waist circumference, moderate‐ to vigorous‐intensity physical activity and diet density.Results: Each additional h week⁻¹ of TV viewing was associated with 4.4% (95% CI: 2.1, 6.7) greater CRP and 0.6% (0.2, 1.0) greater sVCAM‐1 in the fully adjusted model. The association between frequency and duration of 5–10 min bouts of sedentary time and CRP was positive after adjustment for sex and waist circumference but attenuated after adjustment for diet density.Conclusions: This study suggests that TV viewing was unfavourably associated with several markers of inflammation and endothelial dysfunction. The detrimental association between 5 and 10 min bouts of sedentary time and CRP approached significance, suggesting that further research with a stronger study design (longitudinal and/or experimental) is needed to better understand how the accumulation of sedentary time early in life may influence short and longer term health.