No abstract

Objectives We compared the physical activity of nine students participating in an anthropological field school to their activity expenditures in traditional classrooms. We predicted that the students would exhibit higher physical activity during the field school due to the substantial physical requirements associated with the program compared to traditional classroom environments which are frequently more sedentary. Methods Participants (n = 9) wore wrist accelerometers for ~23 h each day for 6 days during an anthropological field school and also in a traditional classroom environment. Accelerometers were programed with participant height, weight, age, and sex. Each accelerometer recorded total energy expenditure in kilocalories (kcal), step counts, and time in four physical activity levels (vigorous, moderate, easy, and very easy) between the field school and traditional classroom settings. Results During the field school portion of the study, participants burned more calories (p < .01), took more steps (p < .0001), and engaged in more moderate and easy exercise (p < .0001). Conclusions This study provides insights into the physical benefits of study abroad programs and field schools. Our multi‐day accelerometer data revealed significant differences in even relatively low intensities of physical activity. This is particularly pertinent in the United States where sedentary lifestyles are increasing among college students. Taken together, the results underscore the importance of study abroad programs, field schools, and other applied learning opportunities beyond the educational, professional, and social benefits.

Social scientists and policymakers have increasingly relied on asset-based indices of household wealth to assess social inequities and to identify economically vulnerable populations in low- and middle-income countries. In the last decade, researchers have proposed a number of asset-based measures that permit global comparisons of household wealth across populations in different countries and over time. Each of these measures relies on different assumptions and indicators, and little is known about the relative performance of these measures in assessing inequalities. In this study, we assess four comparative, asset-based measures of wealth—the Absolute Wealth Estimate (AWE), the International Wealth Index (IWI), the Comparative Wealth Index (CWI), and the “Standard of Living” portion of the Multi-Dimensional Poverty Index (MPI), along with a variable measuring television ownership—and compare how well each predicts health related variables such as women’s BMI, children’s height-for-age Z scores, and infant mortality at the household and survey level. Analyzing data from over 300 Demographic and Health surveys in 84 countries (n= 2,304,928 households), we found that AWE, IWI, CWI, MPI are all highly correlated (r = 0.7 to 0.9). However, IWI which is based on a common set of universally weighted indicators, typically best accounts for variation in all three health measures. We discuss the implications of these findings for choosing and interpreting these measures of wealth for different purposes.