An Investigation of Youth Assets and Physical Activity and BMI Using a Longitudinal Cohort Design

Abstract

Purpose:

Substantial research has demonstrated that assets (eg, family communication, school connectedness) protect youth from participation in numerous risk behaviors. However, very few studies have explored the relationship between assets and positive health behaviors. This study investigated prospective associations among assets and physical activity (PA) and body mass index (BMI).

Design:

Longitudinal design with 5 waves of data collected annually over a 4-year period.

Setting:

Community-based setting with participants recruited via door-to-door canvasing of homes located in stratified (by race and income) randomly selected census tracts and blocks.

Participants:

Participants were 1111 youth (baseline mean age = 14.3 years [SD = 1.6]; 53% female; 40.6% white, 28.6% Hispanic, 24.4% black, 6.4% other) and their parents.

Measures:

Weekly participation in PA, BMI, and 14 youth assets representing multiple levels of influence (individual, family, and community).

Analysis:

Generalized linear mixed models assessed associations among the assets and PA and BMI over the 5 waves of data.

Results:

There was a significant and graded relationship between assets and weekly participation in PA. For example, at the community-asset level, PA minutes were higher among youth with 2 assets (P = .006), 3 assets (P = .0006), and 4 to 5 assets (P < .0001) compared to youth with 0 to 1 assets. No effects were found for BMI.

Conclusion:

Asset-based health promotion programs for youth may promote positive health behaviors and prevent participation in risk behaviors.

Keywords

youth assets health behavior youth physical activity youth BMI adolescent health

Purpose

Research has found that youth assets have a protective influence from many youth risk behaviors and outcomes (eg, substance use, violence, early initiation of sexual intercourse) and may promote some positive outcomes such as successful transition into early adulthood (STEA).^1

–5 Youth assets are skills, competencies, relationships, and opportunities that help youth to overcome challenges and successfully transition through developmental stages into adulthood.^6
–8 Assets, such as aspirations for the future, family communication, and community involvement, are believed to influence youth behavior through individual-, family-, and community-level pathways, which is a perspective similar to the socioecological approach to understanding and predicting health behaviors and outcomes.⁹

Research has found that multiple youth assets (eg, family communication, school connectedness) were prospectively associated with reduced risk of early initiation of sexual intercourse and risk of pregnancy.² Another study found that individual- and community-level assets significantly predicted STEA 4 years later, and the more assets the participants possessed the stronger their STEA outcome.³

However, no studies have investigated associations between youth assets and factors that may protect youth from developing chronic disease. This study’s purpose was to determine whether individual-, family-, and community-level youth assets were prospectively associated with youth participation in physical activity (PA) and lower BMI.

Methods

Design

The study design was a longitudinal cohort. Five waves of data were collected over a 4-year period from youth and their parents (N = 1111 parent and youth dyads). Participants were interviewed annually in their homes in person using a computer-assisted interviewing and data entry system.¹⁰

Sample

Participants were residents living in randomly sampled census tracts located in the Oklahoma city metropolitan area. The census tracts were stratified by income and race/ethnicity prior to sampling. Eligible participants were recruited into the study via in-person canvassing of every residence located in the selected census tracts.¹⁰ The response rate was 61%, and the retention rate over the 5 waves of data collection was 89%. Study inclusion criteria were youth 12 to 17 years old who spoke English or Spanish, living with a parent or guardian, possessing the cognitive functioning to respond to interviewer questions, and having no plans to move from the study area within the next 2 years.

Measures

Data reported by the youth were age, sex, race/ethnicity, assets, PA, and BMI. Parents reported their family income.

Fourteen youth assets were assessed via multi-item constructs. Five assets represented strengths at the individual level, 4 at the family level, and 5 at the community level. The asset constructs were conceived and developed based on literature reviews, previous research, and psychometric testing.⁶ Items representing each asset were summed and divided by the number of items to create a score ranging from 1 (almost never/strongly disagree/very low participation in a positive event or behavior) to 4 (almost always/strongly agree/very high participation in a positive event or behavior). The asset scale includes 14 constructs with adequate reliability for most of the constructs (Cronbach α >.70 for 8 assets, >.60 and <.70 for 4 assets, and >.55 and <.60 for 2 assets).⁶

Physical activity was assessed via the Godin Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire that assesses minutes of participation in strenuous- (eg, running), moderate- (eg, fast walking), and light- (eg, easy walking) intensity PA during a typical week. Reliability of the questionnaire in youth populations has been shown to be good (test–retest correlation = .81), whereas validity was modest (correlation with other activity measures = .39).¹¹ A weekly PA score was calculated by summing the total number of weekly minutes that the youth engaged in strenuous- or moderate-intensity PA. Weekly minutes engaged in light-intensity activities were excluded from the PA score.

Body mass index was determined using self-reported height and weight. Body mass index was calculated as a percentile using a standard formula based on age, gender, weight, and height.¹² Healthy weight was defined as BMI at the 5th percentile to the 84th percentile. Underweight, overweight, and obese were defined as BMI less than the 5th percentile, 85th to 94th percentile, and equal to or greater than the 95th percentile, respectively. Body mass index was analyzed as a bivariate by comparing normal weight youth to overweight or obese youth. Underweight youth were excluded from the analysis.

Analyses

Generalized linear mixed models (SAS, PROC GLIMMIX) were applied to assess prospective associations over the 5 waves of data between the individual-, family-, or community-level assets and PA (continuous) or BMI (bivariate: healthy weight vs overweight/obese). The models were conducted separately for each of the 3 levels of assets. Baseline age, gender, race, and family income were adjusted in the analyses. The PA model also included BMI as a covariate. An α level of 0.05 was used for all the analyses.

ResultsThe participants’ baseline demographic characteristics were mean age = 14.3 years (SD = 1.6); 53% female; 40.6% white, 28.6% Hispanic, 24.4% black, and 6.4% other. Family yearly income was <$35 K (47%), $35K-$62 K (30%), and >$62 K (23%). The baseline mean number of minutes per week that youth reported participating in vigorous or moderate-intensity PA was 133 minutes (SD = 55, range = 30-240). The baseline BMI of participants was underweight (3%), normal weight (63%), overweight (16%), and obese (18%).

Youth who possessed a greater number of assets engaged in a greater number of minutes of PA compared to youth with fewer assets (Table 1). Significant and positive associations between PA and assets were found over time for individual-, family-, and community-level assets. For example, at the community-level, weekly PA minutes were higher among youth with 2 assets (coefficient = 7.70; P = .006), 3 assets (coefficient = 9.40; P = .0006), and 4 to 5 assets (coefficient = 17.56; P < .0001) compared to youth with 0 to 1 assets. Moreover, as the number of assets youth possessed increased so did the number of minutes of weekly participation in PA (Table 1 and Figure 1). No significant associations between youth assets and BMI were indicated.

Table 1.

Results of Generalized Linear Mixed Models Analyses of Youth Asset Groups on Youth Minutes of Weekly Physical Activity and BMI.

Physical Activity^a
Individual-level assets	Coefficient^b	95% CI	P Value
3 vs 0-2	4.09	−5.02 to 13.20	.38
4 vs 0-2	11.56	3.01 to 20.11	.008
5 vs 0-2	15.15	6.73 to 23.57	.004
Family-level assets
2 vs 0-1	5.90	−0.04 to 11.85	.052
3 vs 0-1	8.65	2.86 to 14.44	.003
4 vs 0-1	13.88	7.72 to 20.03	<.0001
Community-level assets
2 vs 0-1	7.70	2.27 to 13.12	.006
3 vs 0-1	9.40	4.02 to 14.79	.0006
4-5 vs 0-1	17.56	11.80 to 23.32	<.0001
BMI ^c
Individual-level assets	Odds Ratio	95% CI	P Value
3 vs 0-2	0.52	0.21 to 1.32	.17
4 vs 0-2	0.70	0.28 to 1.72	.43
5 vs 0-2	0.44	0.18 to 1.07	.07
Family-level assets
2 vs 0-1	1.19	0.63 to 2.27	.59
3 vs 0-1	0.56	0.29 to 1.09	.09
4 vs 0-1	0.58	0.29 to 1.17	.13
Community-level assets
2 vs 0-1	0.69	0.39 to 1.24	.22
3 vs 0-1	0.64	0.36 to 1.15	.13
4-5 vs 0-1	0.85	0.46 to 1.63	.63

Abbreviation: BMI, body mass index; PA, physical activity.

^aPhysical activity model controlled for age, gender, race/ethnicity, family income, and BMI.

^bDifference in mean number of weekly minutes of PA.

^cBMI model controlled for age, gender, race, and family income.

Figure 1.

Associations between differences in number of youth assets and youth weekly number of minutes in physical activity (PA).* * Controlling for age, gender, race/ethnicity, family income, and body mass index (BMI).

Discussion

Summary

To our knowledge, this is the first published study to explore prospective associations between youth assets and PA and BMI. The results were mixed. Assets were consistently associated with PA but not with BMI. The results generally agree with limited past research that has focused on associations between assets and positive behaviors and outcomes.^3,5

Strengthening and increasing specific assets may not only prevent youth from participating in risk behaviors but may also promote participation in positive behaviors such as PA. In particular, youth who possessed the highest number of individual-, family-, or community-level assets were the most active youth. The results also emphasize the importance of multilevel interventions that consider parental and community factors that support youth participation in PA.

The youths’ mean number of minutes per week participating in moderate and vigorous PA was just 130 minutes, whereas the recommended minimum number of minutes per week is 300.¹³ Current national data indicate that approximately 49% of US high school youth meet the PA guidelines.¹⁴ Although our data suggest that strengthening youth assets may be a promising and largely unexplored strategy for promoting youth PA, additional strategies are clearly necessary.

Limitations

Limitations of the study include self-report data. Youth may have overestimated PA and underestimated weight. However, there is no reason to believe possible measurement error was different between youth with lower or higher numbers of assets. Additionally, the study follow-up period may not have been long enough to detect a significant change in BMI over time. Finally, 2 of the reliability coefficients for the asset constructs were below .60 indicating that measurement of the 2 constructs was unsatisfactory.

Significance

Overall, the results indicated that individual-, family-, and community-level assets are significantly associated with PA, and the more assets youth possessed the more they participated in PA.

So What?

What is Already Known on This Topic?

Youth assets protect youth from many risk behaviors including substance use, violence, and early initiation of sexual intercourse. There is some evidence that youth assets are also associated with positive outcomes such as successful transition to early adulthood.

What Does This Article Add?

Youth assets are also prospectively associated with an important behavior that may prevent chronic disease—participation in PA.

What are the Implications for Health Promotion Practice or Research?

Asset-based health promotion programming may help to prevent chronic disease, by increasing participation in PA. Further research is needed to determine why youth assets were not associated with BMI.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The Youth Asset Study was supported by funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Grant Number 5 U01 DP000132. The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the CDC.

References

Tolma

Oman

Vesely

Aspy

. Prospective associations between youth assets, neighborhood characteristics and no-tobacco use among youth: differences by gender. Health Edu. 2013;45(11):11–20.

Oman

Vesely

Aspy

. A longitudinal study of youth assets, neighborhood conditions, and youth sexual behaviors. J Adolesc Health. 2013;52(6):779–785.

Oman

Vesely

Tolma

Aspy

. Prospective associations among assets and successful transition to early adulthood. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(1):e51–e56.

Resnick

Bearman

Blum

. Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health. JAMA. 1997;278(10):823–832.

Youngblade

Theokas

Schulenberg

Curry

Huang

Novak

. Risk and promotive factors in families, schools, and communities: a contextual model of positive youth development in adolescence. Pediatrics. 2007;119(suppl 1):S47–S53.

Oman

Vesely

Tolma

Aspy

Marshall

. Reliability and validity of the youth asset survey: an update. Am J Health Promot. 2010;25(1):e13–e24.

Jessor

Turbin

Costa

. Protective factors in adolescent health behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;75(3):788–800.

Bogenschneider

. An ecological risk/protective theory for building prevention programs, policies, and community capacity to support youth. Family Relat. 1996;45(2):127–138.

McLeroy

Bibeau

Steckler

Glanz

. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Q. 1988;15(4):351–377.

10.

Oman

Vesely

Aspy

. Methodological considerations in a community-based longitudinal study. Am J Health Behav. 2009;33(1):58–68.

11.

Godin

Shephard

. Godin leisure-time exercise questionnaire. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1997;29(6):36–38.

12.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A SAS Program for the 2000 CDC Growth Charts (ages 0 to <20 years). https://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpao/growthcharts/resources/sas.htm. Accessed April 3, 2018.

13.

US Department of Health and Human Services. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report: Strategies to Increase Physical Activity Among Youth. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2012.

14.

National Physical Activity Plan. 2016 United States Report Card on Physical Activity for Children and Youth. http://www.physicalactivityplan.org/projects/reportcard.html. Accessed April 3, 2018.