Socioeconomic and gender-based disparities in the motor competence of school-age children

Elhadidy

2022

ijhs

Background: Motor development in early childhood undergoes great maturation and refinements due to the huge contact and interaction with the environment. Socioeconomic status (SES) as an environmental factor can affect motor development in this age period. The aim of this study was to assess the relation between SES and motor development. Study Design: This study was an observational cross-sectional study and it conducted in nurseries and elementary schools at Cairo governorate, Egypt. Subjects & methods: Two hundreds and seventy six normal children from both sexes aged 4-7 years old participated in this study. Motor development was assessed by the short form of Bruininks-Oseretsky Test 2 of Motor Proficiency (BOT-2 SF). The SES scale was used to measure SES of children's families. IBM SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Science; IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA) release 22 for Microsoft Windows was used for all statistical analyses. Results: The results of this study revealed non-significant association of SES and motor development (r = 0.106, p = 0.078).

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Association between socioeconomic status and motor development in early childhood

Elhadidy

2022

ijhs

“…Furthermore, our findings are consistent with a recent South African study by [ 87 ], which was carried out in a very similar demographic environment and which also stated that rural low-income children had significantly better TGMD-2 standard scores. This negates the notion that children with lower SES naturally perform worse in overall FMS than children with higher SES due to limited access to safe outdoor playing and equipment [ 88 ] or safe places to be active in the community or to sporting equipment at home [ 89 ]. A possible reason for this finding is that children with lower SES often engage in unstructured moderate-to-vigorous physical activity with limited teacher facilitation compared to their higher-SES peers, and this might positively influence the development of FMS [ 87 , 90 , 91 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Influence of Cultural Experiences on the Associations between Socio-Economic Status and Motor Performance as Well as Body Fat Percentage of Grade One Learners in Cape Town, South Africa

Africa

Stryp

Musálek

2021

IJERPH

Fundamental movement skills (FMS), physical fitness (PF) and body fat percentage (BF%) are significantly related to socio-economic status (SES). However, it remains unclear why previous studies have had different findings regarding the direction of the association between SES and FMS, PF and BF%. A suggested explanation is that the direction of the link can be influenced by cultural experiences and traditions. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to investigate links between SES and FMS, PF, BF% of Grade One learners from two different ethno-geographic areas in Cape Town, South Africa. Grade One children (n = 191) (n = 106 boys and n = 85 girls; age (6.7 ± 0.33)) from different socio-economic areas in Cape Town, South Africa, were selected to participate in the study. South African schools are classified into five different quintiles (1 = poorest and 5 = least poor public schools). For this study, two schools were selected, one from quintile 2 and the other from quintile 5. BF% was assessed according to Slaughter’s equation. FMS were measured using the Gross Motor Development Test-2 (TGMD-2) and PF via five tests: 1. dynamic strength of lower limb (broad jump); 2. dynamic strength of upper limb and trunk (throwing a tennis ball); 3. speed agility (4 × 10 m shuttle running); 4. cardiorespiratory fitness (20 m shuttle run endurance test (Leger test)) and 5. flexibility (sit and reach test). An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) found that BF% and WHtR were significantly greater in children with higher SES (Z = 6.04 p < 0.001; Hedg = 0.54), (Z = 3.89 p < 0.001; Hedg = 0.32). Children with lower SES achieved significantly better TGMD-2 standard scores in the locomotor subtest, compared to their peers with higher SES. In the object control subtest, no significant SES-related difference was found. However, ANCOVA showed that girls performed better in FMS than boys. In PF, the main effect of SES was observed in dynamic strength of trunk and upper limb (throwing) and flexibility, where children with lower SES performed significantly better. No significant difference was found in cardiorespiratory performance (CRP) (Beep test), even though children with lower SES achieved better results. Results from the current study suggest that links between SES, PF, FMS and body fat percentage in children seem to be dependent on cultural and traditional experiences. These experiences should therefore be included as an important factor for the development of programmes and interventions to enhance children’s lifelong motor behaviour and health strategies.

“…El sedentarismo, es uno de los grandes problemas en la actualidad en diversos países, y se ha observado en países de bajo nivel socioeconómico existe mayor inactividad física que puede influir negativamente en distintos indicadores de salud (Lawrence et al,2017;Gosselin et al, 2021;Medina et al, 2021).…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Efectos del tratamiento de fuerza y flexibilidad para la anteposición de cabeza y cuello en adultos mayores sobre la capacidad aeróbica submáxima según nivel socioeconómico (Effects of strength and flexibility treatment for forward head posture positioning in older adults on submaximal aerobic capacity according to socioeconomic level)

Verdugo

Silva

Araya

et al. 2022

Retos

Objetivo: El propósito del estudio fue comparar la distancia recorrida a través de la prueba de 6 minutos en adultos mayores que tuvieron tratamiento de fuerza y flexibilidad para la anteposición de cabeza y cuello con diferentes niveles socioeconómicos. Materiales y métodos: La investigación presenta un diseño experimental de dos grupos independientes no aleatorizado, basado en la evaluación de la prueba de 6 minutos posterior a 4 meses de tratamiento de fuerza y flexibilidad para la anteposición de cabeza y cuello en adultos mayores. A un establecimiento asistían participantes catalogados como bajo nivel socioeconómico y en el otro establecimiento asistían participantes con un nivel socioeconómico alto. Los criterios de inclusión y exclusión: adultos mayores > 60 años, nivel bajo y alto socioeconómico, ángulo craneovertebral <50 grados. Los criterios de exclusión: sin patologías neurológicas, sistémicas, infecciosas y traumáticas. Resultados: El nivel socioeconómico no es una determinante en el efecto del tratamiento de fuerza de flexibilidad para la anteposición de cabeza y cuello en adultos mayores en relación con la capacidad submáxima (p < 0.05). Conclusión: La condición previa de los participantes y la edad son determinantes más influyentes en el efecto del tratamiento de fuerza y flexibilidad para la anteposición de cabeza y cuello en adultos mayores sobre la capacidad aeróbica submáxima. Además, la condición previa y la edad explican el 86.3 % de la variabilidad post tratamiento. Palabras claves: postura, actividad motora, rehabilitación, terapia por ejercicio, medicina física y rehabilitación. Abstract. Objective: The purpose of the study was to compare the distance traveled through the 6-minute test in older adults who had strength and flexibility treatment for the forward head posture positioning with different socioeconomic levels. Materials and methods: This investigation presents a non-randomized experimental design of two independent groups, based on the evaluation of the 6-minute test after 4 months of strength and flexibility treatment for forward head posture positioning in older adults. One establishment was attended by participants classified as low socioeconomic level and the other establishment was attended by participants with a high socioeconomic level. Inclusion and exclusion criteria: older adults > 60 years, low and high socioeconomic status, craniovertebral angle < 50 degrees. Exclusion criteria: without neurological, systemic, infectious and traumatic pathologies. Results: The socioeconomic level is not a determinant in the effect of the flexibility strength treatment for forward head posture positioning in older adults in relation to submaximal capacity (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The previous condition of the participants and age are the most influential determinants in the effect of the strength and flexibility treatment for forward head posture positioning in older adults on submaximal aerobic capacity. In addition, the previous condition and age explain 86.3% of the post-treatment variability. Keywords: posture, motor activity, rehabilitation, exercise therapy, physical and rehabilitation medicine.