Browsing by Author "Christiansen L.B."

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • No Thumbnail Available
    ItemMetadata only
    Correction to: Improving National and International Surveillance of Movement Behaviours in Childhood and Adolescence_ An International Modified Delphi Study (Sports Medicine, (2025), 55, 1, (203-219), 10.1007/s40279-024-02104-2)
    (2025-01-01) Reilly J.J.; Andrew R.; Abdeta C.; Azevedo L.B.; Farias N.A.; Barak S.; Bardid F.; Bizzozero-Peroni B.; Brazo-Sayavera J.; Cagas J.Y.; Chelly M.S.; Christiansen L.B.; Djordjic V.D.; Draper C.E.; El-Hamdouchi A.; Fares E.J.; Gába A.; Hesketh K.D.; Hossain M.S.; Huang W.; Jáuregui A.; Juvekar S.K.; Kuzik N.; Larouche R.; Lee E.Y.; Levi S.; Liu Y.; Löf M.; Loney T.; López-Gil J.F.; Mäestu E.; Manyanga T.; Martins C.; Mendoza-Muñoz M.; Morrison S.A.; Munambah N.; Mwase-Vuma T.W.; Naidoo R.; Ocansey R.; Okely A.D.; Oluwayomi A.; Paudel S.; Poh B.K.; Ribeiro E.H.; Silva D.A.S.; Shahril M.R.; Smith M.; Staiano A.E.; Standage M.; Subedi N.; Tanaka C.; Tang H.K.; Thivel D.; Tremblay M.S.; Uzicanin E.; Vlachopoulos D.; Webster E.K.; Widyastari D.A.; Zembura P.; Aubert S.; Reilly J.J.; Mahidol University
    In this article the Co-author’s name José Francisco López-Gil was incorrectly written as Jose Francisco Lopez Gil. José Francisco López-Gil’s affiliation One Health Research Group, Universidad de Las Américas, Quito, Ecuador was incorrectly written as Centro de Investigacion Biomedica, Unidad de Actividad Fisica Infanto-Juvenil, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. The original article has been updated accordingly.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    ItemMetadata only
    Global Matrix 4.0 Physical Activity Report Card Grades for Children and Adolescents: Results and Analyses From 57 Countries
    (2022-11-01) Aubert S.; Barnes J.D.; Demchenko I.; Hawthorne M.; Abdeta C.; Nader P.A.; Sala J.C.A.; Aguilar-Farias N.; Aznar S.; Bakalár P.; Bhawra J.; Brazo-Sayavera J.; Bringas M.; Cagas J.Y.; Carlin A.; Chang C.K.; Chen B.; Christiansen L.B.; Christie C.J.A.; De Roia G.F.; Nyström C.D.; Demetriou Y.; Djordjic V.; Emeljanovas A.; Endy L.F.; Gába A.; Galaviz K.I.; González S.A.; Hesketh K.D.; Huang W.Y.; Hubona O.; Jeon J.Y.; Jurakić D.; Jürimäe J.; Katapally T.R.; Katewongsa P.; Katzmarzyk P.T.; Kim Y.S.; Lambert E.V.; Lee E.Y.; Levi S.; Lobo P.; Löf M.; Loney T.; López-Gil J.F.; López-Taylor J.; Mäestu E.; Mahendra A.; Makaza D.; Mallari M.F.T.; Manyanga T.; Masanovic B.; Morrison S.A.; Mota J.; Müller-Riemenschneider F.; Bermejo L.M.; Murphy M.H.; Naidoo R.; Nguyen P.; Paudel S.; Pedišić Ž.; Pérez-Gómez J.; Reilly J.J.; Reimers A.K.; Richards A.B.; Silva D.A.S.; Saonuam P.; Sarmiento O.L.; Sember V.; Shahril M.R.; Smith M.; Standage M.; Stratton G.; Subedi N.; Tammelin T.H.; Tanaka C.; Tesler R.; Thivel D.; Tladi D.M.; Tlučáková L.; Vanderloo L.M.; Williams A.; Wong S.H.S.; Wu C.L.; Zembura P.; Tremblay M.S.; Mahidol University
    Background: The Global Matrix 4.0 on physical activity (PA) for children and adolescents was developed to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the global variation in children’s and adolescents’ (5–17 y) PA, related measures, and key sources of influence. The objectives of this article were (1) to summarize the findings from the Global Matrix 4.0 Report Cards, (2) to compare indicators across countries, and (3) to explore trends related to the Human Development Index and geo-cultural regions. Methods: A total of 57 Report Card teams followed a harmonized process to grade the 10 common PA indicators. An online survey was conducted to collect Report Card Leaders’ top 3 priorities for each PA indicator and their opinions on how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted child and adolescent PA indicators in their country. Results: Overall Physical Activity was the indicator with the lowest global average grade (D), while School and Community and Environment were the indicators with the highest global average grade (C+). An overview of the global situation in terms of surveillance and prevalence is provided for all 10 common PA indicators, followed by priorities and examples to support the development of strategies and policies internationally. Conclusions: The Global Matrix 4.0 represents the largest compilation of children’s and adolescents’ PA indicators to date. While variation in data sources informing the grades across countries was observed, this initiative highlighted low PA levels in children and adolescents globally. Measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic, local/international conflicts, climate change, and economic change threaten to worsen this situation.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    ItemMetadata only
    Improving National and International Surveillance of Movement Behaviours in Childhood and Adolescence: An International Modified Delphi Study
    (2024-01-01) Reilly J.J.; Andrew R.; Abdeta C.; Azevedo L.B.; Farias N.A.; Barak S.; Bardid F.; Bizzozero-Peroni B.; Brazo-Sayavera J.; Cagas J.Y.; Chelly M.S.; Christiansen L.B.; Djordjic V.D.; Draper C.E.; El-Hamdouchi A.; Fares E.J.; Gába A.; Hesketh K.D.; Hossain M.S.; Huang W.; Jáuregui A.; Juvekar S.K.; Kuzik N.; Larouche R.; Lee E.Y.; Levi S.; Liu Y.; Löf M.; Loney T.; Gil J.F.L.; Mäestu E.; Manyanga T.; Martins C.; Mendoza-Muñoz M.; Morrison S.A.; Munambah N.; Mwase-Vuma T.W.; Naidoo R.; Ocansey R.; Okely A.D.; Oluwayomi A.; Paudel S.; Poh B.K.; Ribeiro E.H.; Silva D.A.S.; Shahril M.R.; Smith M.; Staiano A.E.; Standage M.; Subedi N.; Tanaka C.; Tang H.K.; Thivel D.; Tremblay M.S.; Uzicanin E.; Vlachopoulos D.; Webster E.K.; Widyastari D.A.; Zembura P.; Aubert S.; Reilly J.J.; Mahidol University
    Background: The actions required to achieve higher-quality and harmonised global surveillance of child and adolescent movement behaviours (physical activity, sedentary behaviour including screen time, sleep) are unclear. Objective: To identify how to improve surveillance of movement behaviours, from the perspective of experts. Methods: This Delphi Study involved 62 experts from the SUNRISE International Study of Movement Behaviours in the Early Years and Active Healthy Kids Global Alliance (AHKGA). Two survey rounds were used, with items categorised under: (1) funding, (2) capacity building, (3) methods, and (4) other issues (e.g., policymaker awareness of relevant WHO Guidelines and Strategies). Expert participants ranked 40 items on a five-point Likert scale from ‘extremely’ to ‘not at all’ important. Consensus was defined as > 70% rating of ‘extremely’ or ‘very’ important. Results: We received 62 responses to round 1 of the survey and 59 to round 2. There was consensus for most items. The two highest rated round 2 items in each category were the following; for funding (1) it was greater funding for surveillance and public funding of surveillance; for capacity building (2) it was increased human capacity for surveillance (e.g. knowledge, skills) and regional or global partnerships to support national surveillance; for methods (3) it was standard protocols for surveillance measures and improved measurement method for screen time; and for other issues (4) it was greater awareness of physical activity guidelines and strategies from WHO and greater awareness of the importance of surveillance for NCD prevention. We generally found no significant differences in priorities between low-middle-income (n = 29) and high-income countries (n = 30) or between SUNRISE (n = 20), AHKGA (n = 26) or both (n = 13) initiatives. There was a lack of agreement on using private funding for surveillance or surveillance research. Conclusions: This study provides a prioritised and international consensus list of actions required to improve surveillance of movement behaviours in children and adolescents globally.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    ItemMetadata only
    Status and Trends of Physical Activity Surveillance, Policy, and Research in 164 Countries: Findings From the Global Observatory for Physical Activity—GoPA! 2015 and 2020 Surveys
    (2023-02-01) Varela A.R.; Hallal P.C.; Grueso J.M.; Pedišić Ž.; Salvo D.; Nguyen A.; Klepac B.; Bauman A.; Siefken K.; Hinckson E.; Oyeyemi A.L.; Richards J.; Khidir E.D.S.; Inoue S.; Amagasa S.; Jauregui A.; da Silva M.C.; Lee I.M.; Ding M.; Kohl H.W.; Ekelund U.; Heath G.W.; Powell K.E.; Foster C.; Memon A.R.; Doumbia A.; Rather A.R.; Razzaque A.; Diouf A.; Hino A.A.; Damasceno A.; Abebe A.D.; Florindo A.A.; Mannocci A.; Aringazina A.; Jurican A.B.; Poffet A.; Decelis A.; Carlin A.; Enescu A.; Avilés A.M.O.; Kontsevaya A.; Somhegyi A.; Vuillemin A.; El Hamdouchi A.; Théodore A.A.; Masanovic B.; Lynch B.M.; Medina C.; del Campo C.; Abdeta C.; Moreways C.; Ranasinghe C.; Howitt C.; Cameron C.; Jurakić D.; Martinez-Gomez D.; Tladi D.; Diro D.T.; Adlakha D.; Mitić D.; Bjelica D.; Biernat E.; Chisati E.M.; Lambert E.V.; Cerin E.; Lee E.Y.; Riso E.M.; Villalba F.C.; Assah F.; Lovrić F.; Araya-Vargas G.A.; La Torre G.; Cruz G.I.N.; Baltaci G.; Al Sabbah H.; Nalecz H.; Nashandi H.L.; Park H.; Revuelta-Sánchez I.; Nusurupia J.J.; Zamora J.L.; Kopcakova J.; Brazo-Sayavera J.; Oppert J.M.; Nie J.; Spence J.C.; Bradley J.S.; Mota J.; Mitáš J.; Chen J.; Hylton K.S.; Fromel K.; Milton K.; Borodulin K.; Moustapha K.A.; Martinez-Folgar K.; Nasreddine L.; Christiansen L.B.; Malisoux L.; Mahidol University
    Background: Physical activity (PA) surveillance, policy, and research efforts need to be periodically appraised to gain insight into national and global capacities for PA promotion. The aim of this paper was to assess the status and trends in PA surveillance, policy, and research in 164 countries. Methods: We used data from the Global Observatory for Physical Activity (GoPA!) 2015 and 2020 surveys. Comprehensive searches were performed for each country to determine the level of development of their PA surveillance, policy, and research, and the findings were verified by the GoPA! Country Contacts. Trends were analyzed based on the data available for both survey years. Results: The global 5-year progress in all 3 indicators was modest, with most countries either improving or staying at the same level. PA surveillance, policy, and research improved or remained at a high level in 48.1%, 40.6%, and 42.1% of the countries, respectively. PA surveillance, policy, and research scores decreased or remained at a low level in 8.3%, 15.8%, and 28.6% of the countries, respectively. The highest capacity for PA promotion was found in Europe, the lowest in Africa and low- and lower-middle-income countries. Although a large percentage of the world’s population benefit from at least some PA policy, surveillance, and research efforts in their countries, 49.6 million people are without PA surveillance, 629.4 million people are without PA policy, and 108.7 million live in countries without any PA research output. A total of 6.3 billion people or 88.2% of the world’s population live in countries where PA promotion capacity should be significantly improved. Conclusion: Despite PA is essential for health, there are large inequalities between countries and world regions in their capacity to promote PA. Coordinated efforts are needed to reduce the inequalities and improve the global capacity for PA promotion.