4.6 Article

Environmental Influences on Children's Physical Activity: Quantitative Estimates Using a Twin Design

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 5, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010110

关键词

-

资金

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [31/D19086]
  2. Cancer Research UK [C1418/A7974]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Twin studies offer a 'natural experiment' that can estimate the magnitude of environmental and genetic effects on a target phenotype. We hypothesised that fidgetiness and enjoyment of activity would be heritable but that objectively-measured daily activity would show a strong shared environmental effect. Methodology/Principal Findings: In a sample of 9-12 year-old same-sex twin pairs ( 234 individuals; 57 MZ, 60 DZ pairs) we assessed three dimensions of physical activity: i) objectively-measured physical activity using accelerometry, ii) 'fidgetiness' using a standard psychometric scale, and iii) enjoyment of physical activity from both parent ratings and children's self-reports. Shared environment effects explained the majority (73%) of the variance in objectively-measured total physical activity (95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.63-0.81) with a smaller unshared environmental effect (27%; CI: 0.19-0.37) and no significant genetic effect. In contrast, fidgetiness was primarily under genetic control, with additive genetic effects explaining 75% (CI: 62-84%) of the variance, as was parent's report of children's enjoyment of low 74% (CI: 61-82%), medium 80% (CI: 71-86%), and high impact activity (85%; CI: 78-90%), and children's expressed activity preferences (60%, CI: 42-72%). Conclusions: Consistent with our hypothesis, the shared environment was the dominant influence on children's day-to-day activity levels. This finding gives a strong impetus to research into the specific environmental characteristics influencing children's activity, and supports the value of interventions focused on home or school environments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据