The Camp Setting for Promoting Youth Physical Activity: Systematic Observations of Summer Day Camps

Abstract

Abstract:The risk for youth obesity is higher during the summer than any other time of year. Summer day camps can be ideal settings for preventing obesity through reducing youth summer sedentary behaviors. However, little-to-no research has examined the role of camps for promoting youth physical activity (PA) and other healthy behaviors. This study begins to address the gap in research by conducting systematic observations of 4 summer day camps (2 highly-resourced and 2 low-resourced) to determine: 1) the degree to which camps engage youth in moderate-to-vigorous (MV) PA, and; 2) to what extent camps provide important physical and social-motivational features for promoting PA. Results indicate camps provide opportunities for youth to meet national recommendations of daily MVPA. However, there were differences in PA and motivational features by level of camp resources. This study helps inform practice and policy through identifying strengths and needs of camps for promoting PA.

Physical and Social-Motivational Contextual Correlates of Youth Physical Activity in Underresourced Afterschool Programs

“…Moreover, observed sex differences in motivational features associated with youth PA indicate that among this sample of underserved youth, social relations (inclusive games, positive peer interactions) appear to be most salient for girls' PA, and support findings of previous observational studies of youth summer day camps (Zarrett et al, 2012; 2013). In contrast, all three motivational features specified by SDT (support for autonomy, mastery/competence, and inclusion/relatedness) were found important for males' PA. Interestingly, we found "engaging games" was particularly predictive of boys' PA and may capture the gender differences found in previous research indicating that boys are more likely than girls to have a PA motivational profile that includes both high ego (e.g., winning, performance) and task (mastery) orientation (Wang & Biddle, 2001;Wang et al, 2002).…”

“…However, in addition to adequate access to equipment, space, and other structural features that support PA, the positive youth development framework (PYD; Lerner, 2005) and self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2000) along with previous research (Braithwaite, Spray, & Warburton, 2011; Weiss, Amorose, & Kipp, 2012; Zarrett, Skiles, & Sorensen, 2012; Zarrett, Sorensen, & Skiles, 2013), suggests that facilitation of engagement also requires consideration of the motivational climate of the program context. Specifically, participation in PA during program hours is likely to be highly dependent on whether the PA program components (1) are “engaging” (optimally challenging), (2) provide youth opportunities to make their own choices (autonomy), and (3) facilitate positive social connections, support, and sense of inclusion/belonging with peers and staff (Braithwaite et al, 2011; Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Granger, Durlak, Yohalem, & Reisner, 2007; National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2002).…”

Environmental and social-motivational contextual factors related to youth physical activity: systematic observations of summer day camps

“…Further, the momentary sampling techniques of the SOPLAY protocol used in the present study enables researchers to gather data on the PA of groups as it co-occurs with the (continuously changing) motivational climate of the context in which they are participating [81]. Although, there are observation tools which include an assessment of the physical environment, staff/teacher behaviors, and/or other basic contextual features (e.g., type of activity), to date, little-to-no observation tools have been designed to assess the motivational climate features of youth PA settings [61]. Findings from the present study indicate an assessment of the motivational climate of youth settings, such as summer day camps, contributes to our understanding of the contextual supports and barriers of youth PA within these settings.…”

Formative Process Evaluation of the “Connect” Physical Activity Feasibility Trial for Adolescents

“…Development and operationalization of the study's essential elements (see Tables 1 and 2) for facilitating improvements in the 3 targeted social components were derived from the integration and extension of the theoretical frameworks of SDT and AGT and preliminary qualitative and observational studies the first author conducted within underserved ASPs that assessed the infrastructure, staff behaviors, and social motivational context for supporting youth PA (Zarrett et al, 2012a; Lawman et al, 2012; Zarrett et al, 2015; Zarrett et al, 2018 [24][25][26][27] ). Through 5-day systematic observations of 7 ASPs, using an observation tool that the author developed and tested (Zarrett et al, 2012b; Zarrett et al, 2013; Zarrett et al, 2015 28,29,26 ) the first phase of this iterative process identified several critical social processes (eg, positive peer connections, inclusive and cooperative activities that foster group belongingness) and staff behaviors (eg, encouraging and participating with youth in PA) that were primary correlates of students' moderate-to-vigorous (MV) PA, and the only predictor of MVPA for less active youth, and girls. Findings from the observation study were used to develop an initial set of essential elements (eg, Staff PA involvement and encouragement; inclusive/cooperative activities; respect and positive peer interactions; guided autonomy; PA social support).…”