You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
  • Systematic Review
  • Open Access

31 January 2023

Movement Behaviour and Health Outcomes in Rural Children: A Systematic Review

,
,
,
and
1
Post-Graduation Program of Physical Education, Department of Physical Education, Federal University of Sergipe, São Cristóvão 49100-000, Brazil
2
Post-Graduation Program of Human Movement Sciences, Federal University of Pará, Belém 66075-110, Brazil
3
Post-Graduation Program of Anthropic Studies in the Amazon, Federal University of Pará, Belém 66075-110, Brazil
4
Centre of Research, Education, Innovation and Intervention in Sport (CIFI2D), Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, 4200-450 Porto, Portugal
This article belongs to the Special Issue New Trends in Motor Development: The Role of Health Behaviors and Environmental Characteristics

Abstract

Background: Studies with rural children are limited, and results are divergent regarding the information on movement behaviours. Purpose: to (i) describe the physical activity and sedentary behaviour in children; (ii) synthetize the year and place of publication, methodological quality, and instruments used to measure physical activity and sedentary behaviour; and (iii) to analyse the relationship between physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and health outcomes in these children. Methods: We use the databases PubMed, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, Virtual Health Library, and SciELO, considering papers published until October 2021. A total of 12,196 studies were identified, and after the exclusion of duplicate, title and abstract screening, and the full-text assessment, a total of 68 were included in the study. Results: A cross-sectional design was dominant among the studies, with sample sizes ranging from 23 to 44,631 children of both sexes. One-third of the studies were conducted in North America and Europe, and most of them used device-based measurements. Inequalities were observed regarding sex, age, economic level, race, and physical activity domains within and between the places of residence. Sociodemographic characteristics were also related to health outcomes for children living in rural and urban areas. Conclusion: It is necessary to increase the evidence on movement behaviours among children living in the countries of South America and Oceania, as well as to increase the level of evidence on the role of school for physical activity in children in rural areas, given the inconsistent findings.

1. Introduction

Children’s movement behaviour is closely related to environmental aspects [,], which include not only the physical environment (e.g., urbanization, housing infrastructure, climate, and transport) [], but also the social (e.g., family support, encouragement of friends and partners), cultural, and the political ones []. Considering the physical environment, previous studies showed differences in physical activity levels between children from urban and rural areas [,]. In general, a reduced number of structured spaces for physical activity practices, safety perception, motorized transport, and high availability of screen leisure activities are pointed out as factors related to a decrease in physical activity levels among children living in urban areas [,,]. On the other hand, rural areas may have a more peaceful lifestyle, with more open-air areas, greater possibilities for active transport, and even aspects related to labour activities (generally involving manual work), which can play a relevant influence on children’s movement behaviours, with a positive impact on their physical activity levels [].
Physical inactivity and a high amount of time in sedentary behaviours are associated with an increased risk of developing non-communicable diseases (e.g., hypertension, diabetes, and cancer) [], increased body adiposity, with a negative impact on health and physical fitness in children [,]. In this context, for health benefits, the World Health Organization (WHO) suggests that children and adolescents (aged 5–17 years) should be engaged in at least an average of 60 min/day in moderate to vigorous physical activity and also limit the time spent on sedentary behaviour, especially recreational screen time [,].
Based on this, it seems of relevance to better understand the role of the environment on children’s movement behaviour, and how this relationship impacts their health. However, most of the previous studies focusing on investigation of correlates and/or determinants of physical activity and sedentary behaviours in children have been developed by sampling youth from urban areas [,,,,]. Studies with rural children are limited [], and results are divergent regarding the compliance with WHO physical activity guidelines, as well as physical activity and sedentary behaviour predictors, and their association with health outcomes [].
In addition, although the increase in urbanization, recent estimates show that more than 50% of children worldwide live in rural areas, and these children often live in less favoured conditions than their urban peers [], highlighting the need for more attentive support for this group, especially related to their general health. It should be noted that researches that evaluate children’s health (or development in general) usually come from western countries, also called minority, which sometimes ends up generalizing and creating interventions to other countries or regions (majoritarian) based on their own reality, disregarding much broader and diversified contexts/environments [].
Therefore, it seems of relevance to summarize the published studies that addressed this topic, to better understand the role of the rural environment on movement behaviours, and its association with child health. So, considering studies that sampled children living in rural areas, this systematic review aimed to (i) synthetize the year and place of publication, methodological quality, and instruments used to measure movement behaviours (physical activity and sedentary behaviour); (ii) describe physical activity and sedentary behaviour in children from rural settings; (iii) analyse the relationship between physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and health outcomes in these children; and (iv) present the differences between rural and urban children regarding movement behaviour and health indicators, when this information was presented in the studies.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Protocol

This systematic review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [http://www.prisma-statement.org/ (accessed on 17 September 2022)] being previously registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, CRD42021283549) [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ (accessed on 17 September 2022)].

2.2. Databases and Search Strategy

The search process was carried out in the following electronic databases: PubMed, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, Virtual Health Library (BVS—Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde), and SciELO, considering papers published until October 2021. Based on the PICO strategy, the search terms and Boolean operators used in the search strategy were: (child* OR school* OR young* OR kids) AND (“physical activity” OR exercise OR sport* OR “physical inactivity” OR sedentar* OR sitting OR “screen time”) AND (health) AND (rural). The search was performed using the terms in English, Portuguese and Spanish, and the truncation symbol (*) was used in some terms with the purpose to provide a wider scope within the context of the search. All the results found in the databases were downloaded and uploaded to the reference manager EndNote software (version X9.0, Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA), which was used during the screening procedures.

2.3. Inclusion and Eligibility Criteria

To be included in the study, papers were required to fill the following criteria: (i) original papers; (ii) published in English, Portuguese or Spanish; (iii) sampling children up to 14 years old, from, even partially, rural areas (studies whose sample age exceeded the age of 14 y were also included, but results were only considered, for this review, from those aged ≤14 y); (iv) with the purpose to assess physical activity and/or sedentary behaviour (with health-related benefits). Further, no restriction regarding study design or publication year was considered.

2.4. Study Selection

Searching in the databases and screening processes were performed by two researchers, independently. First, search results from each database, were downloaded and uploaded to Endnote software, and duplicate results were excluded. Further, using the previously established eligibility criteria, papers were firstly selected based on their title and abstract, and the remaining papers were read in full text. At this stage, in case of divergences between the two reviewers, a third researcher was consulted.

2.5. Quality Assessment

The studies included in this research were evaluated for their methodological quality by two independent researchers. The checklist used (Table 1) was adapted from a previous published study [], which comprises 10 items, which evaluate: (1) the study aims; (2) sample characteristics; (3) sample size justification; (4) instruments for data collection; (5) statistical analysis; (6) description of the results; (7) conclusions; (8) practical implications; (9) limitations; and (10) directions for future research.
Table 1. Checklist used to evaluate studies’ quality.
If divergences in the evaluation were found between the two researchers, a third researcher evaluation was considered. Selected articles were not excluded based on the results of this evaluation. Based on this evaluation, the studies were categorized into levels: high (>75%), intermediate (50–74%), and low (<50%).

3. Results

3.1. Included Studies

Figure 1 shows the study selection process flowchart. A total of 12,196 studies were identified. Duplicate records were deleted, using EndNote’s specific tool, and then through a manual check, resulting in 6351 studies for title and abstract screening. After reading the title and abstract, ≈98.6% of the papers were excluded, and 90 were fully assessed, from which 68 were included in the study.
Figure 1. Flowchart for data screening (adapted from PRISMA 2020 flow diagram []).
Table 2 (rural) and Table 3 (comparison between rural and urban) present data extraction from the selected papers. Information is related to the sample location (continent, country, and specific region, when informed), sample characteristics (size and age/school grade), instruments used (based-device or questionnaires), main results, and the evaluation of methodological quality.
Table 2. Data extracted from articles that sampled only rural children (54.4%).
Table 3. Data extracted from articles comparing rural × urban/suburban children (45.6%).

3.2. Methodological Quality Assessment

The methodological quality attributed to the studies were categorized based on the study of Abarghoueinejad et al. []. No research presented a low methodological evaluation. In general, most were evaluated as high methodological quality (62), and only seven were classified as intermediate. Among the studies that sampled only rural children, four of them were classified as intermediate, while 33 were classified as high (only one study [] reached the highest score). Among the studies that compared urban vs. urban subjects, two of them obtained a grade that classified them as intermediate (one with 50% []), and 29 of them were classified as high (of which reached the highest score [,,,]).

3.3. General Aspects

All the studies—except two [Benefice et al. [] (longitudinal) and Franco et al. [] (mixed-longitudinal)]—used a cross-sectional design. The majority of the studies sampled children of both sexes, with one of them sampling only girls [], aged between two to 19. Further, the sample size ranged from 23 [] to 44,631 [] subjects—13.3% had up to 99 subjects, 45.5% sampled between 100–499 individuals, 13.3% sampled between 500–1000, 27.9% sampled more than 1000 participants.
Regarding the year of publication, the oldest study included in this review dates from 1997 [], and from this year until the end of the first decade of the 21st century, 20 (29.4%) studies were identified [,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,]. However, since then, an increase in the number of publications was observed, and between 2016–2021 we were able to identify 25 (36.7%) published studies that attained our eligibility criteria, i.e., in these last five years there was a higher number of publications than in the first 13 years considered in the reviewer timeframe [,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,].
Regarding the place where studies were conducted, almost one-third of them [22 (32.3%)] sampled children from North America (USA [,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,] and Canada [,,]). Europe was the second continent with the highest number of publications, with 15 (22.0%) studies (Portugal [,,,], Spain, [,,], Cyprus [,], Poland [,], United Kingdom [,], Greece [], and Ireland []); followed by Asia [12 (17.6%) studies—China [,,], India [,], Japan [,,], Malaysia [,], Iran [], and Nepal []]; and Africa [9 (13.2%) studies—Mozambique [,,], South Africa [,], Kenya [,], Senegal [] and Uganda []]. South America [Brazil [,], Chile [,], and Ecuador []] and Oceania (Australia [,,,] and New Zealand []), had 5 studies each (14.7% together).

3.4. Instruments Used

Among studies that sampled only children from rural settings, both questionnaires and device-based measurements were used to estimate physical activity and/or sedentary behaviour. Of these studies, 14 of them used device-based measurements, namely accelerometers [,,,,,,,,,] or pedometers [,,,], which were mostly conducted in North America or Europe, with sample sizes, in general, smaller than studies that used questionnaires (maximum with 406 subjects). In general, movement behaviours were estimated based on 7 days of device use (ranging from 3 to 7 days).
Regarding the studies that used questionnaires (20), different instruments were used (such as Physical Activity Checklist, Physical Activity Questionnaire for Children, IPAQ-A, Self-Administrated Physical Activity Checklist, Youth Activity Profile, PAQ-C, System for Observing Fitness Instruction Time, Previous Day Physical Activity Recall) [,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,], as well as different strategies to describe the studied variables—for example, specific regression equations, the use of METs (metabolic equivalent), means and medians of counts and predefined cut-off points. In addition, three studies used accelerometers and questionnaires together [,,], providing additional information regarding the type of activities children were enrolled in, as well as food consumption and socioeconomic status.
On the other hand, the majority of the studies that sampled both rural and urban/suburban children used questionnaires to estimate physical activity and/or sedentary behaviour [,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,]—only 8 of them used device-based measurements, such as an accelerometer [,,,,,,] or pedometer [] (most of them conducted in Europe). Only one survey combined the use of questionnaire and pedometer []. In addition, a large variation in sample sizes was also observed among these studies, ranging from 129 to 44,631 children/adolescents.

3.5. Physical Activity

3.5.1. Rural Sample

Among studies that sampled only rural children, some aimed to investigate possible disparities in physical activity related to sex and age. In general, boys were more active than girls [,,,,,,,,,,,], and also spent more time in moderate physical activity (MPA) [] and vigorous physical activity (VPA) [,,,,,,,]. However, three studies reported that girls were more active than boys [,,], and in four papers non-differences were found in physical activity according to sex [,,,].
Regarding age, from the published studies, it was possible to notice that the intensity and/or time (minutes) of physical activity decreases with increasing age [,,,], but one study found the opposite—lower levels of physical activity among young children compared to their oldest peers [].
About the domains of physical activity, two studies reported the role of domestic tasks in the amount of physical activity of youth from rural areas, especially among girls [,]. On the other hand, regarding the leisure domain, boys were more active than girls, due to more involvement in sports practice []. Moreover, results related to active transportation showed that children who walk to school presented a higher daily steps average than those who reported using some type of inactive transportation [], and scholars who lived close to schools used more active commuting to go to/from school [].
A trend related to differences in physical activity was not observed when comparing school days and weekend days. For example, among children, Fukushima et al. [] reported that children were more active on days without classes, while Button et al. [] found the opposite—children were less active on weekends, and Brazendale et al. [] did not find differences in physical activity among children based on days of the week. Among adolescents, Williams et al. [] reported that teenagers were more active during school days.
Only one study investigated the role of the weather in youth physical activity, showing a positive association between increasing temperature and an increase in time spent in MVPA [] among Canadian children. Regarding the role of the time in children’s physical activity, the longitudinal study conducted by Benefice et al. [] analysed three cohorts of Senegalese children between 13 and 15 years old (1997, 13 years; 1998, 14 years; and 1999, 15 years). The results from the last cohort (1999) showed (compared to the other first two cohorts) a decrease in MPA levels and an increase in VPA, but no significant changes were observed for LPA [].

3.5.2. Rural × Urban Samples—Comparison

Studies that compared children from rural × urban/suburban areas showed, in general, that rural children were more active than their urban/suburban peers [,,,,,,,,,,], with only one study showing the opposite—children from a rural area had a lower steps count compared to those from an urban area []. This pattern was also observed when stratified by sex, where rural girls were more active [,] and spent more time in MVPA than the urban ones [,,]. Only one survey showed rural boys as being more active than urbans [].
However, some studies did not observe differences in physical activity (time and/or level) according to sex [] and place of residence [,,,]. In addition, regardless of the place of residence, some studies showed that boys were more active [,], and only one study found high activity levels among girls when compared to boys []. Regarding race, one study showed that, among rural children, black girls were more vigorously active, and when comparisons between rural vs. urban were made, white girls were less engaged in VPA [].
Regarding active transportation, Andrade Neto et al. [] and Itoi et al. [] described that rural children tend to use less active commuting to/from school than urban children, while Kundapur et al. [] reported, specifically about the use of bicycle to go to school, that rural children used more this commuting strategy compared to urban ones, and Christiana et al. [] and Morais Macieira et al. [] found that, considering active commuting as a whole, rural youth tend to be more active to go to/from places. Moreover, domestic activities, such as fetching water and herding animals, were more usual among rural samples, playing relevant roles in their total physical activity []. About sports practice, Bathrellou et al. [] observed a lower involvement of rural children in sports, compared to urban ones.
Considering the period of the day, Kundapur et al. [] and Joens-Matre et al. [] found that rural children and adolescents engage more in physical activities at night than their urban peers. Moreover, the role of seasons was investigated in two studies, with divergent results: Loucaides et al. [] showed that rural children take more steps in summer and fewer steps during winter, and spent more time outdoors in general than their urban peers []; while McCrorie et al. [] reported that rural youth spent more time in MVPA in winter and lower levels in spring than urban youth.

3.6. Sedentary Behaviour

3.6.1. Rural Sample

Studies with rural children observed some sex differences—boys spent less time in sedentary behaviour than girls [,,,]; but one study pointed out that boys spent more time on computer games []. Regarding age, two studies reported that older children and adolescents spent more time in sedentary behaviour [,,].
Regarding sedentary behaviour on school days, Brazendale et al. [] observed that children were less sedentary during school days and had more screen time during the week, while Pate et al. [] stated that students who watched television or played video games for more than 3 h after school were more likely to be inactive [].
Furthermore, two studies reported results regarding race and socioeconomic aspects. Newton et al. [] showed that children with low socioeconomic status spent less time in sedentary behaviour, and Moore et al. [] reported that black children spent more time watching TV during school days when compared to white children [].

3.6.2. Rural × Urban Sample—Comparison

Studies that compared children living in rural and urban settings observed, in general, that rural children spent less time watching TV and/or using computer [,,,,,,,,], notwithstanding Andrade Neto et al. [] have pointed out that rural children spend more time watching TV, and Morais Macieira et al. [] reported that among children who spent >2 h/day on screen, the majority of them were from a rural area. One study did not find differences in screen time between rural and urban youth [].
When the compliance of screen time guidelines was investigated, rural children complied the most when compared to urbans [,]. Taking into account sex differences, results seem to be quite different, although Dollman et al. [] have noticed that rural boys spent less daily screen time than urban ones. In addition, the two studies from Machado-Rodrigues et al. [,] revealed different results, due to the use of different instruments to collect information about the same variable. For example, using accelerometers, authors found that urban girls spent more time in sedentary behaviour than rural ones [], while through the use of questionnaire, and focusing on screen-time, authors reported that rural girls had more screen-time sedentary behaviour []. Dollman et al. [] did not find any difference in TV time between urban and rural girls [].

3.7. Health Outcomes

3.7.1. Rural Sample

Overall, the prevalence of overweight and obesity in children/adolescents ranged from 16% to 38% [,,,,,,,,,,,,], but in one study this frequency was lower than 8% [] while in another one the frequency was close to 50% []. Regarding sex-differences, different results were founded, with some studies highlighting a higher frequency of overweight/obesity among girls [,,], one study showing a higher frequency among boys [], and no differences were observed in three studies [,,].
Regarding the association between movement behaviours and health outcomes, several studies showed significant associations between physical activity and sedentary behaviour with BMI [,,,] (more time spent in sedentary behaviour was related to a higher BMI). In addition, the involvement in physical activity seems to differ accordingly to children’s fat percentage or nutritional status, since girls with high fat percentage were more physically inactive than their peers with lower levels of body fat []. Shriver et al. [] and Bin Saad et al. [] showed that between 70% and 80% of overweight/obese children were inactive [] or spent less time in moderate physical activity compared to normal-weight children [].
Some studies investigated other health outcomes in addition to BMI. Moore et al. [] reported that children with low levels of physical activity were three times more likely to have metabolic syndrome and twice more likely to be overweight than children with high physical activity levels. On the other hand, Santos et al. [] pointed out that no significant associations were observed between levels of physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness.

3.7.2. Rural × Urban Comparison

Different results were shown for children from both rural and urban areas. Almost all the studies analysed overweight as a health outcome, and results were different, showing (i) non-differences in nutritional status according to the place of residence [,,], or (ii) higher prevalence of overweight/obesity among rural children [,,,], or (iii) higher prevalence of overweight/obesity [,,] and higher levels of subcutaneous adipose tissue [] among urban children.
Regarding differences taking into account sex and the place of residence, one study reported a higher prevalence of overweight among rural boys [], while another showed a higher prevalence of obesity among urban girls [], and one study stated no differences between urban and rural girls for overweight prevalence []. Some studies investigated health outcomes according to physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Liu et al. [] observed that among physically active children, those living in rural areas had higher levels of overweight. In addition, the study conducted by Xu et al. [] showed that children who spent more time in sedentary behaviour (tv time >7 h/week), regardless of where they live, were more likely to be overweight.

4. Discussion

The purposes of this systematic review were (i) to describe physical activity and sedentary behaviour in children from rural settings; (ii) synthesize the year and place of publication, methodological quality, and instruments used to measure movement behaviours (physical activity and sedentary behaviour); and (iii) to analyse the relationship between physical activity, sedentary behaviour and health outcomes in children living in rural areas. Substantial and methodological findings are highlighted: (i) little evidence is available from longitudinal studies, (ii) studies are centred in North America and Europe, with few results from South America and Oceania; (iii) both device-measurement and questionnaire were used for data collection; (iv) inequalities regarding sex, age, economic level, race, and physical activity domains within and between the places of residence (i.e., rural and urban areas); (v) sociodemographic characteristics were also related to health outcomes for children living in rural and urban areas. Figure 2 highlights the seven main findings of this systematic review.
Figure 2. Summary of the main findings.

4.1. Physical Activity and Health-Related Outcomes in Rural Children

Inequalities in physical activity were found among children living in rural areas. The role of sex and age was established, since older children tend to present less time in physical activity. These results are in accordance with previous studies [,,]. Inconsistent findings were found regarding sex differences, except for physical activity in the domestic activities domain, in which girls presented higher mean values comparatively to boys [,], and physical activity during leisure time, in which boys were more active []. Differences in physical activity between sexes are similar to previous findings []. In summary, these differences were related to social expectations and cultural stereotypes, that overvalued the role of girls in domestic activities []. The paradox of physical activity was previously tested among adults [] and the results showed that resources and environmental factors are the main barriers to PA practice, while social influences are the main motivator for involvement and adherence to physical activity; however, future studies need to deeply understand the characteristics of the domestic activities performed by children living in rural areas, especially the health-related outcomes possibly associated with the involvement of these activities.
Obesity rates ranged from 16% to 38% among children living in rural areas, and similar results were observed among urban children (19% to 36%) [,,,,,,,,,,,,], with inconsistent findings for sex [,,,,,,]. Low physical activity levels and high sedentary behaviour were positively associated with BMI [,,,]. The direction of this relationship is well established in the literature []. The negative spiral of disengagement [] refers to the risk of obesity when the relationship between physical activity and motor competence was not well developed during the first years of the children’s life. These findings were supported by recent studies [,,], and different health outcomes were investigated [,]. For the present review, among the revised studies, metabolic syndrome was also investigated among children living in rural areas [], with no association be observed with physical fitness []. The association between BMI and physical activity needs to be investigated in longitudinal design studies sampling rural children, due to the relevance of the outcome derived from this relationship to people’s health across the lifespan, and also since this relationship may change from childhood to adolescence. In addition, the mentioned relationship, and its outcomes, can be presented differently in children living in rural settings compared to results derived from children living in urban areas.
Moreover, differences in physical activity according to days of the week showed different results, with some studies showing that children were more active on days without classes [], while Button et al. [] found the opposite, i.e., children were more active during school days. These differences may be related to the environmental characteristics considered, as well as different methods used in the studies [,]. Therefore, living near the school was positively associated with active commuting []. Previous results showed that long distances to be covered during commuting and household income were negatively related to active transportation among children [], while recreational facilities and the existence of walking or bike paths increase the use of active transportation []. Notwithstanding the relevance of active commuting and leisure physical activity for children’s health, specific environmental conditions must be taken into account, since the natural and built environments can affect, both positively or negatively, the involvement in physical activity in its different domains. For example, as shown, in the Canadian context it was observed that higher temperatures were related to higher physical activity levels among children [] (each 1 °C (1.8 °F) increase in temperature leads to increases in MVPA by about 1.2 min) due to opportunities to perform physical activities in outdoor spaces. However, this relationship must be better explored in countries with higher temperatures during most of the year, which could allow the understanding of the role of weather in active commuting and outdoor leisure physical activity.

4.2. Differences in Physical Activity and Health-Related Outcomes between Rural and Urban Children

The main findings showed that children from rural areas presented, in general, higher physical activity levels [,,,,,,,,,,] as well as were more active in the domestic domain [], regardless the sex. Differences in physical activity, such as during leisure, are related to environmental features, such as security perception and the availability of outdoor spaces for physical activity [], which seems to be friendly/available in rural areas. In addition, differences in physical activity in the domestic domain can be related to socioeconomic conditions, since rural children may be more involved in domestic activities to assist with household chores such as gardening, animal grazing, and fetching water []. In another way, children living in urban areas presented higher engagement in sports activities [], which is also related to motor, physical and social development []. These disparities are explained by the higher possibilities to access to structured activities in urban areas, as well as the diversity of practices, sometimes available in extra school time [,,]. Further, considering the physical structure of urban areas, the lack of available, free of taxes, and secure spaces for children usage increase the search for structured spaces []. These differences are also expressed when analysing the weekly physical activity time, in which children living in rural areas tend to present higher levels of physical activity during the evenings [,]. Factors such as the perception of security, availability of outdoor spaces for physical activity practice, and even parental availability to play with their children in the outdoor area may be related to these differences [,]. Inconsistent findings were shown for active transportation [,,].
Obesity rates were similar among children living in rural and urban areas [,,]. Since obesity is a complex phenotype, related to individual and environmental characteristics [], a more holistic approach needs to be considered for a better explanation. Food consumption was previously related to obesity in children []; however, non-differences were provided regarding the place of residence, and the pattern of food consumption in these different places. Among inactive children, those living in rural areas presented higher levels of being overweight [].

4.3. Differences in Sedentary Behaviour within and between Rural and Urban Areas

Among those living in rural areas, girls [,,,] and older children [,,] spent more time in sedentary behaviour than their peers. Differences in movement behaviours according to sex were already expected. Historical, cultural, economic, and family factors affect the involvement and engagement in physical activities [], being able to reinforce sexist patterns that more hectic tasks are for boys and calmer for girls. Given that, girls are more prone to perform activities in sedentary positions (such as sitting). Comparing urban and rural children, regardless of sex, urban children spent more time in sedentary behaviour [,,,,,,,,] and were less prone to meet screen time recommendations [,]. Economic aspects, such as more access to TV, video games and smartphones, as well as less availability of outdoor spaces to play, can play a relevant role in these differences [,]. The WHO Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour Guidelines [] emphasize the association of sitting time/screen with several negative health outcomes, so although it does not stipulate a daily screen time, it is recommended that “kids and teens should limit the amount of time they spend sedentary, particularly the amount of recreational screen time”. A revised study on this subject reported that children who spent more time in sedentary behaviours were more likely to be overweight [].
Two studies, sampling the same subjects but using different instruments for data collection, found distinct results regarding differences in sedentary behaviour between rural and urban girls—data derived from accelerometer showed that urban girls spent more time in sedentary behaviour [], while data derived from self-reported questionnaire revealed that rural girls were more sedentary (screen time) []. This demonstrates the relevance of choosing the measurement method according to the study purpose, avoiding possible bias in the results. Although the use of device-based measurements (such as accelerometer or pedometer) presents a trend of greater reliability for the collected variable [], they are more expensive and often less accessible in countries with less investment and support for researches, highlighting that the use of questionnaires seems to be a more viable alternative []. In addition, Tremblay et al. [] noted, in their systematic review, that informed information is usually the most used to measure sedentary behaviour, “allowing” to classify subjects based on time spent in screen (the 2 h/day is the most used cut-off point), which can lead to a false conclusion that there is a screen time limit during the day to be, or not be, sedentary.
Regarding screen time, the findings indicate that rural children had more TV time []. This fact may be related to a possible difficulty of access to other types of screens (e.g., computer, smartphone, video game), perhaps due to economic factors or, often, difficulties with internet access, which ends up limiting the functionalities of these devices, made less attractive, especially for children [,]. Such aspects can also explain the results that showed that children with lower socioeconomic status spent less time in sedentary behaviour []. This lack of access to technologies can lead to greater involvement in active play and reduce the possibilities of sedentary leisure [].

4.4. Limitations, Strengths, and Remarks

Limitations of the present study include the search strategy used which, although it was thought to cover most of the studies on the subject studied, may have excluded some pertinent articles from the results, especially those published in languages other than English, Portuguese, and Spanish. In addition, the different forms of measurement and cut-off points of physical activity and sedentary behaviour used, hinder the synthesis and generalization of the findings presented by the studies. In addition, the limited number of reviewed papers that used other health outcomes than BMI does not allow us to deeply understand the relationship between movement behaviour and health outcomes in rural children. Despite these limitations, to the author’s knowledge, this is the first review that has set out to investigate differences in movement behaviours and health outcomes in rural children. In addition, the fact that we used three different languages (Portuguese, English, and Spanish) allowed us to access a larger number of articles for the analysis, which increased the accuracy of our screening process. Therefore, performing a meta-analysis with the information discussed here could increase the robustness of the synthesis of the results presented in the study.
Based on these findings, suggestions for future studies include: increasing the evidence about movement behaviours among children living in South America and Oceania countries, since differences regarding geographic, social, cultural, economic, and political factors are evident; increasing the level of evidence about the role of the school for physical activity in children from rural areas, given the inconsistent findings; provide information about natural (e.g., weather) and built environments (e.g., school structure, bike lanes) for physical activity and sedentary behaviour, especially considering the socioeconomic gradient.

5. Conclusions

Our findings showed that rural children were more physically active and spent less time in sedentary behaviour compared to their urban peers. Among the rural samples, boys were more active and had less screen time than girls and, overall, the rates of overweight were between 16% and 38% and did not differ according to the place of residence (rural and urban). As expected, we noted that low levels of physical activity and long periods of sedentary behaviour were associated with negative health outcomes, such as obesity. We observed a greater number of publications in the recent five years, and a greater concentration of research conducted by high-income countries, especially North Americans and Europeans, which were also the ones that used more device-based measurements, although most studies have been conducted using questionnaires. Finally, the methodological quality attributed to most of the studies was considered high.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.V. and T.N.G.; methodology, D.V., T.N.G. and M.T.; databases searches, D.V. and E.C.G.; screening, D.V., E.C.G. and Â.S.N.; formal analysis, D.V.; quality assessment, D.V. and Â.S.N.; writing—original draft preparation, D.V., E.C.G., Â.S.N., M.T. and T.N.G.; writing—review and editing, D.V., M.T. and T.N.G.; supervision, T.N.G.; project administration, D.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

Our acknowledgments to all who contributed to the development of this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Schneider, S.; Diehl, K.; Görig, T.; Schilling, L.; De Bock, F.; Hoffmann, K.; Albrecht, M.; Sonntag, D.; Fischer, J. Contextual influences on physical activity and eating habits-options for action on the community level. BMC Public Health 2017, 17, 760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Nieuwendyk, L.M.; Belon, A.P.; Vallianatos, H.; Raine, K.D.; Schopflocher, D.; Spence, J.C.; Plotnikoff, R.C.; Nykiforuk, C.I. How perceptions of community environment influence health behaviours: Using the Analysis Grid for Environments Linked to Obesity Framework as a mechanism for exploration. Health Promot. Chronic Dis. Prev. Can. Res. Policy Pract. 2016, 36, 175–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Gutiérrez-Zornoza, M.; Rodríguez-Martín, B.; Martínez-Andrés, M.; García-López, Ú.; Sánchez-López, M. Percepción del entorno para la práctica de actividad física en escolares de la provincia de Cuenca, España. Gac. Sanit. 2014, 28, 34–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Christiana, R.W.; Bouldin, E.D.; Battista, R.A. Active living environments mediate rural and non-rural differences in physical activity, active transportation, and screen time among adolescents. Prev. Med. Rep. 2021, 23, 101422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lu, C.; Huang, G.; Corpeleijn, E. Environmental correlates of sedentary time and physical activity in preschool children living in a relatively rural setting in the Netherlands: A cross-sectional analysis of the GECKO Drenthe cohort. BMJ Open 2019, 9, e027468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Minnaar, E.; Grant, C.C.; Fletcher, L. Physical activity of children from a small rural town, South Africa. S. Afr. Fam. Pract. 2016, 58, 68–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Manyanga, T.; Barnes, J.D.; Chaput, J.P.; Katzmarzyk, P.T.; Prista, A.; Tremblay, M.S. Prevalence and correlates of adherence to movement guidelines among urban and rural children in Mozambique: A cross-sectional study. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2019, 16, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Fondo de las Naciones Unidas para la Infancia (UNICEF). Estado Mundial de la Infancia: Niños, Alimentos y Nutrición (Crecer bien en un Mundo en Transformación); United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF): New York, NY, USA, 2019; p. 258. [Google Scholar]
  9. Regis, M.F.; Oliveira, L.M.; Santos, A.R.; Leonidio, A.D.; Diniz, P.R.; Freitas, C.M. Urban versus rural lifestyle in adolescents: Associations between environment, physical activity levels and sedentary behavior. Einstein 2016, 14, 461–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. World Health Organization. Physical Activity. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/physical-activity (accessed on 11 July 2022).
  11. Wu, X.Y.; Han, L.H.; Zhang, J.H.; Luo, S.; Hu, J.W.; Sun, K. The influence of physical activity, sedentary behavior on health-related quality of life among the general population of children and adolescents: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0187668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chaput, J.P.; Willumsen, J.; Bull, F.; Chou, R.; Ekelund, U.; Firth, J.; Jago, R.; Ortega, F.B.; Katzmarzyk, P.T. 2020 WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour for children and adolescents aged 5–17 years: Summary of the evidence. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2020, 17, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. World Health Organization. WHO Guidelines on Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour. Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/336656/9789240015128-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 25 September 2022).
  14. DiPietro, L.; Al-Ansari, S.S.; Biddle, S.J.H.; Borodulin, K.; Bull, F.C.; Buman, M.P.; Cardon, G.; Carty, C.; Chaput, J.P.; Chastin, S.; et al. Advancing the global physical activity agenda: Recommendations for future research by the 2020 WHO physical activity and sedentary behavior guidelines development group. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2020, 17, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Yang, X.; Leung, A.W.; Jago, R.; Yu, S.C.; Zhao, W.H. Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviors among Chinese Children: Recent Trends and Correlates. Biomed. Environ. Sci. BES 2021, 34, 425–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chen, B.; Waters, C.N.; Compier, T.; Uijtdewilligen, L.; Petrunoff, N.A.; Lim, Y.W.; van Dam, R.; Müller-Riemenschneider, F. Understanding physical activity and sedentary behaviour among preschool-aged children in Singapore: A mixed-methods approach. BMJ Open 2020, 10, e030606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Kohl, H.W., 3rd; Craig, C.L.; Lambert, E.V.; Inoue, S.; Alkandari, J.R.; Leetongin, G.; Kahlmeier, S. The pandemic of physical inactivity: Global action for public health. Lancet 2012, 380, 294–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hartson, K.R.; Gance-Cleveland, B.; Amura, C.R.; Schmiege, S. Correlates of Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviors among Overweight Hispanic School-aged Children. J. Pediatr. Nurs. 2018, 40, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Liangruenrom, N.; Craike, M.; Biddle, S.J.H.; Suttikasem, K.; Pedisic, Z. Correlates of physical activity and sedentary behaviour in the Thai population: A systematic review. BMC Public Health 2019, 19, 414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Manyanga, T.; Pelletier, C.; Prince, S.A.; Lee, E.-Y.; Sluggett, L.; Lang, J.J. A Comparison of Meeting Physical Activity and Screen Time Recommendations between Canadian Youth Living in Rural and Urban Communities: A Nationally Representative Cross-Sectional Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 4394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fundo das Nações Unidas para a Infância (UNICEF). Situação Mundial da Infância; United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF): New York, NY, USA, 2012; p. 155. [Google Scholar]
  22. Draper, C.E.; Barnett, L.M.; Cook, C.J.; Cuartas, J.A.; Howard, S.J.; McCoy, D.C.; Merkley, R.; Molano, A.; Maldonado, C.; Obradović, J.; et al. Publishing child development research from around the world: An unfair playing field resulting in most of the world’s child population under-represented in research. Infant Child Dev. 2022, e2375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Abarghoueinejad, M.; Baxter-Jones, A.D.G.; Gomes, T.N.; Barreira, D.; Maia, J. Motor Performance in Male Youth Soccer Players: A Systematic Review of Longitudinal Studies. Sports 2021, 9, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ Open 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Benefice, E.; Garnier, D.; Ndiaye, G. Assessment of physical activity among rural Senegalese adolescent girls: Influence of age, sexual maturation, and body composition. J. Adolesc. Health Off. Publ. Soc. Adolesc. Med. 2001, 28, 319–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Nhantumbo, L.; Maia, J.; Saranga, S.; Prista, A. Atividade física em crianças e jovens residentes em uma comunidade rural moçambicana: Efeitos da idade, sexo e estado nutricional. Rev. Panam. Salud Publica 2008, 23, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Prista, A.; Nhantumbo, L.; Saranga, S.; Lopes, V.; Maia, J.; e Seabra, A.; Vinagre, J.; Conn, C.A.; Beunen, G. Physical Activity Assessed by Accelerometry in Rural African School-age Children and Adolescents. Pediatr. Exerc. Sci. 2009, 21, 384–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Croteau, K.; Schofield, G.; Towle, G.; Suresh, V. Pedometer-determined physical activity of Western Kenyan children. J. Phys. Act. Health 2011, 8, 824–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Craig, E.; Bland, R.; Reilly, J. Objectively measured physical activity levels of children and adolescents in rural South Africa: High volume of physical activity at low intensity. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 2013, 38, 81–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Santos, F.K.; Gomes, T.N.Q.F.; Damasceno, A.; Prista, A.; Eisenmann, J.; Maia, J.A.R. Physical activity, fitness and the metabolic syndrome in rural youths from Mozambique. Ann. Hum. Biol. 2013, 40, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Cheah, W.L.; Helmy, H.; Chang, C.T. Factors associated with physical inactivity among female and male rural adolescents in Borneo—A cross-sectional study. Int. J. Adolesc. Med. Health 2014, 26, 447–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Williams, K.D.; Subedi, J.; Jha, B.; Blangero, J.; Williams-Blangero, S.; Towne, B. Quantitative physical activity assessment of children and adolescents in a rural population from Eastern Nepal. Am. J. Hum. Biol. Off. J. Hum. Biol. Counc. 2016, 28, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Abe, T.; Kitayuguchi, J.; Okada, S.; Okuyama, K.; Gomi, T.; Kamada, M.; Ueta, K.; Nabika, T.; Tanaka, C. Prevalence and Correlates of Physical Activity among Children and Adolescents: A Cross-Sectional Population-Based Study of a Rural City in Japan. J. Epidemiol. 2020, 30, 404–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bin Saad, M.F.; Lian, C.W.; Koon, P.B. Predictors and barriers to physical activity among rural preschool children in Kuching and Samarahan Divison, Sarawak, Malaysia. Sri Lanka J. Child Health 2020, 49, 353–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zhang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Li, J.; Zhong, H.; Pan, C.W. Associations of outdoor activity and screen time with adiposity: Findings from rural Chinese adolescents with relatively low adiposity risks. BMC Public Health 2020, 20, 1769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Fukushima, N.; Abe, T.; Kitayuguchi, J.; Tanaka, C.; Amagasa, S.; Kikuchi, H.; Okada, S.; Tanaka, S.; Inoue, S. Adherence to the Japanese Physical Activity Guideline during Early Childhood among Rural Preschoolers: A Cross-sectional Study. J. Epidemiol. 2021, 31, 194–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Kelly, L.A.; Reilly, J.J.; Grant, S.; Paton, J.Y. Low physical activity levels and high levels of sedentary behaviour are characteristic of rural Irish primary school children. Ir. Med. J. 2005, 98, 138–141. [Google Scholar]
  38. Ciesla, E.; Mleczko, E.; Bergier, J.; Markowska, M.; Nowak-Starz, G. Health-Related Physical Fitness, BMI, physical activity and time spent at a computer screen in 6 and 7-year-old children from rural areas in Poland. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2014, 21, 617–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Gutierrez-Zornoza, M.; Sanchez-Lopez, M.; Garcia-Hermoso, A.; Gonzalez-Garcia, A.; Chillon, P.; Martinez-Vizcaino, V. Active Commuting to School, Weight Status, and Cardiometabolic Risk in Children from Rural Areas: The Cuenca Study. Health Educ. Behav. 2015, 42, 231–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Machado-Rodrigues, A.M.; Coelho e Silva, M.J.; Ribeiro, L.P.; Fernandes, R.; Mota, J.; Malina, R.M. Waist Circumference and Objectively Measured Sedentary Behavior in Rural School Adolescents. J. Sch. Health 2016, 86, 54–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Jonczyk, P.; Potempa-Jeziorowska, M.; Swietochowska, E.; Kucharzewski, M. The analysis of the degree of 10–13-year-old children’s nutrition, dietary habits and physical activity in the selected rural and urban areas of Silesian Province (Poland). Egypt. Pediatr. Assoc. Gaz. 2021, 69, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Pate, R.R.; Trost, S.G.; Felton, G.M.; Ward, D.S.; Dowda, M.; Saunders, R. Correlates of physical activity behavior in rural youth. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 1997, 68, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Harrell, J.S.; Pearce, P.F.; Markland, E.T.; Wilson, K.; Bradley, C.B.; McMurray, R.G. Assessing physical activity in adolescents: Common activities of children in 6th-8th grades. J. Am. Acad. Nurse Pract. 2003, 15, 170–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Davy, B.M.; Harrell, K.; Stewart, J.; King, D.S. Body weight status, dietary habits, and physical activity levels of middle school-aged children in rural Mississippi. South. Med. J. 2004, 97, 571–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Treuth, M.S.; Hou, N.Q.; Young, D.R.; Maynard, L.M. Accelerometry-measured activity or sedentary time and overweight in rural boys and girls. Obes. Res. 2005, 13, 1606–1614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Moore, J.B.; Davis, C.L.; Baxter, S.D.; Lewis, R.D.; Yin, Z.N. Physical activity, metabolic syndrome, and overweight in rural youth. J. Rural Health 2008, 24, 136–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Glover, S.; Piper, C.N.; Hassan, R.; Preston, G.; Wilkinson, L.; Bowen-Seabrook, J.; Meyer-Davis, B.; Williams, S. Dietary, physical activity, and lifestyle behaviors of rural African American South Carolina children. J. Natl. Med. Assoc. 2011, 103, 300–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Newton, R.L.; Hongmei, H.; Sothem, M.; Martin, C.K.; Webber, L.S.; Williamson, D.A. Accelerometry Measured Ethnic Differences in Activity in Rural Adolescents. J. Phys. Act. Health 2011, 8, 287–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Shriver, L.H.; Harrist, A.W.; Hubbs-Tait, L.; Topham, G.; Page, M.; Barrett, A. Weight status, physical activity, and fitness among third-grade rural children. J. Sch. Health 2011, 81, 536–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Limbers, C.A.; Young, D.; Grimes, G.R. Dietary, physical activity, and sedentary behaviors associated with percent body fat in rural Hispanic youth. J. Pediatr. Health Care 2014, 28, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Cottrell, L.; Zatezalo, J.; Bonasso, A.; Lattin, J.; Shawley, S.; Murphy, E.; Lilly, C.; Neal, W.A. The relationship between children physical activity and family income in rural settings: A cross-sectional study. Prev. Med. Rep. 2015, 2, 99–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Chow, A.F.; Leis, A.; Humbert, L.; Muhajarine, N.; Engler-Stringer, R. Healthy Start—Depart Sante: A pilot study of a multilevel intervention to increase physical activity, fundamental movement skills and healthy eating in rural childcare centres. Can. J. Public Health 2016, 107, E312–E318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Daly, C.M.; Foote, S.J.; Wadsworth, D.D. Physical Activity, Sedentary Behavior, Fruit and Vegetable Consumption and Access: What Influences Obesity in Rural Children? J. Community Health 2017, 42, 968–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Button, B.L.G.; Martin, G.; Clark, A.F.; Graat, M.; Gilliland, J.A. Examining Factors of Accelerometer-Measured Sedentary Time in a Sample of Rural Canadian Children. Children 2020, 7, 232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Brazendale, K.; Rayan, S.; Eisenstein, D.; Blankenship, M.; Rey, A.; Garcia, J.; Odahowski, C.L.; Leon, A. Obesogenic Behaviors of Rural Children on School and Nonschool Days. Child. Obes. 2021, 17, 483–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Button, B.L.G.; Shah, T.I.; Clark, A.F.; Wilk, P.; Gilliland, J.A. Examining weather-related factors on physical activity levels of children from rural communities. Can. J. Public Health 2021, 112, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kellstedt, D.K.; Schenkelberg, M.A.; Essay, A.M.; Von Seggern, M.J.; Rosenkranz, R.R.; Welk, G.J.; High, R.; Dzewaltowski, D.A. Youth sport participation and physical activity in rural communities. Arch. Public Health 2021, 79, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Barnett, L.M.; Beurden, E.V.; Zask, A.; Brooks, L.O.; Dietrich, U.C. How active are rural children in Australian physical education? J. Sci. Med. Sport 2002, 5, 253–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Fronza, F.C.A.O.; Minatto, G.; Martins, C.R.; Petroski, E.L. Excessive TV Viewing Time and Associated Factors in Brazilian Adolescents from a Rural Area. Hum. Mov. 2015, 16, 20–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Valdes-Badilla, P.A.; Vergara-Coronado, N.Y.; Suazo-Poblete, D.; Godoy-Cumillaf, A.; Herrera-Valenzuela, T.; Duran-Aguero, S. Anthropometric profile and habits of physical activity of a school students Mapuches rural Temuco, Chile. Rev. Esp. Nutr. Hum. Diet. 2015, 19, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Christoph, M.J.; Grigsby-Toussaint, D.S.; Baingana, R.; Ntambi, J.M. Physical Activity, Sleep, and BMI Percentile in Rural and Urban Ugandan Youth. Ann. Glob. Health 2017, 83, 311–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kidokoro, T.; Tian, X.J.; Fuku, N.; Waiganjo, L.B.; Rintaugu, E.G.; Kigaru, M.D.; Mwangi, F.M. Segmented physical activity and sedentary behavior patterns among children in Maasai village and Nairobi city. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 2021, 34, e23649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Xu, F.; Li, J.Q.; Ware, R.S.; Owen, N. Associations of television viewing time with excess body weight among urban and rural high-school students in regional mainland China. Public Health Nutr. 2008, 11, 891–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Itoi, A.; Yamada, Y.; Watanabe, Y.; Kimura, M. Physical activity, energy intake, and obesity prevalence among urban and rural schoolchildren aged 11–12 years in Japan. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 2012, 37, 1189–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Karkera, A.; Swaminathan, N.; Pais, S.M.; Vishal, K.; Rai B, S. Physical fitness and activity levels among urban school children and their rural counterparts. Indian J. Pediatr. 2014, 81, 356–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Baygi, F.; Heshmat, R.; Kelishadi, R.; Mohammadi, F.; Motlagh, M.E.; Ardalan, G.; Asayesh, H.; Larijani, B.; Qorbani, M. Regional Disparities in Sedentary Behaviors and Meal Frequency in Iranian Adolescents: The CASPIAN-III Study. Iran. J. Pediatr. 2015, 25, e182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Kundapur, R.; Baisil, S. Assessment of difference in physical activities in urban and rural adolescents of Mangalore. Indian J. Community Health 2017, 29, 75–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lu, J.; Xu, Y.; Xu, Y.; Liu, G.; Xiang, J. Sedentary Behavior Associated with Obesity in Rural-to-Urban Migrant Children by Comparison of Those in Rural and Urban Area in China. Iran. J. Public Health 2019, 48, 2083–2085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Loucaides, C.A.; Chedzoy, S.M.; Bennett, N. Differences in physical activity levels between urban and rural school children in Cyprus. Health Educ. Res. 2004, 19, 138–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Bathrellou, E.; Lazarou, C.; Panagiotakos, D.B.; Sidossis, L.S. Physical activity patterns and sedentary behaviors of children from urban and rural areas of Cyprus. Cent. Eur. J. Public Health 2007, 15, 66–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ara, I.; Moreno, L.A.; Leiva, M.T.; Gutin, B.; Casajus, J.A. Adiposity, physical activity, and physical fitness among children from Aragon, Spain. Obesity 2007, 15, 1918–1924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Bounova, A.; Michalopoulou, M.; Gourgoulis, V. Physical activity of adolescents in rural and semi-urban districts of Greece. Stud. Phys. Cult. Tour. 2010, 17, 247–252. [Google Scholar]
  73. Craggs, C.; van Sluijs, E.M.; Corder, K.; Panter, J.R.; Jones, A.P.; Griffin, S.J. Do children’s individual correlates of physical activity differ by home setting? Health Place 2011, 17, 1105–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Machado-Rodrigues, A.M.; Coelho-e-Silva, M.J.; Mota, J.; Padez, C.; Ronque, E.; Cumming, S.P.; Malina, R.M. Cardiorespiratory fitness, weight status and objectively measured sedentary behaviour and physical activity in rural and urban Portuguese adolescents. J. Child Health Care 2012, 16, 166–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Machado-Rodrigues, A.M.; Coelho-E-Silva, M.J.; Mota, J.; Padez, C.; Martins, R.A.; Cumming, S.P.; Riddoch, C.; Malina, R.M. Urbanrural contrasts in fitness, physical activity, and sedentary behaviour in adolescents. Health Promot. Int. 2014, 29, 118–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Morais Macieira, L.M.; Tavares Lopes de Andrade Saraiva, J.M.; da Conceição Santos, L. Overweight and obesity and their associated factors among early adolescence school children in urban and rural Portugal. BMC Nutr. 2017, 3, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Franco Arévalo, D.; Feu, S.; de la Cruz Sánchez, E. Rural-urban differences in physical activity levels during the transition from primary education to high school. Rev. Esp. Salud Publica 2020, 94, e202005026. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  78. McCrorie, P.; Mitchell, R.; Macdonald, L.; Jones, A.; Coombes, E.; Schipperijn, J.; Ellaway, A. The relationship between living in urban and rural areas of Scotland and children’s physical activity and sedentary levels: A country-wide cross-sectional analysis. BMC Public Health 2020, 20, 304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Felton, G.M.; Dowda, M.; Ward, D.S.; Dishman, R.K.; Trost, S.G.; Saunders, R.; Pate, R.R. Differences in physical activity between black and white girls living in rural and urban areas. J. Sch. Health 2002, 72, 250–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Joens-Matre, R.R.; Welk, G.J.; Calabro, M.A.; Russell, D.W.; Nicklay, E.; Hensley, L.D. Rural-urban differences in physical activity, physical fitness, and overweight prevalence of children. J. Rural Health 2008, 24, 49–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Liu, J.H.; Bennett, K.J.; Harun, N.; Probst, J.C. Urban-rural differences in overweight status and physical inactivity among US children aged 10–17 years. J. Rural Health 2008, 24, 407–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Liu, J.-H.; Jones, S.J.; Sun, H.; Probst, J.C.; Merchant, A.T.; Cavicchia, P. Diet, physical activity, and sedentary behaviors as risk factors for childhood obesity: An urban and rural comparison. Child. Obes. 2012, 8, 440–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Moore, J.B.; Beets, M.W.; Morris, S.F.; Kolbe, M.B. Comparison of objectively measured physical activity levels of rural, suburban, and urban youth. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2014, 46, 289–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Aucote, H.M.; Cooper, A. Relationships between body fatness, small-screen sedentary activity and regionality among schoolchildren in Victoria, Australia. Aust. J. Rural Health 2009, 17, 141–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Hodgkin, E.; Hamlin, M.J.; Ross, J.J.; Peters, F. Obesity, energy intake and physical activity in rural and urban New Zealand children. Rural Remote Health 2010, 10, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Dollman, J.; Maher, C.; Olds, T.S.; Ridley, K. Physical activity and screen time behaviour in metropolitan, regional and rural adolescents: A-sectional study of Australians aged 9–16 years. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2012, 15, 32–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Bell, L.; Ullah, S.; Olds, T.; Magarey, A.; Leslie, E.; Jones, M.; Miller, M.; Cobiac, L. Prevalence and socio-economic distribution of eating, physical activity and sedentary behaviour among South Australian children in urban and rural communities: Baseline findings from the OPAL evaluation. Public Health 2016, 140, 196–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Andrade Neto, F.; Eto, F.N.; Pereira, T.S.; Carletti, L.; Molina Mdel, C. Active and sedentary behaviours in children aged 7 to 10 years old: The urban and rural contexts, Brazil. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Lizana, P.A.; Cisternas-Vallejos, P.; Araya, L.; Aguilera, F.; Mora, M. Obesity, Body Fat Distribution, and Physical Activity in School-age Children: An Urban and Rural Comparison in Valparaiso, Chile. Biomed. Environ. Sci. BES 2016, 29, 834–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Flor-Garrido, P.; Romo, M.L.; Abril-Ulloa, V. Differences in nutritional status, physical activity, and fruit and vegetable consumption in urban and rural school-going adolescents in Paute, Ecuador. Arch. Latinoam. Nutr. 2016, 66, 230–238. [Google Scholar]
  91. Bhuiyan, N.; Singh, P.; Harden, S.M.; Mama, S.K. Rural physical activity interventions in the United States: A systematic review and RE-AIM evaluation. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2019, 16, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Umstattd Meyer, M.R.; Perry, C.K.; Sumrall, J.C.; Patterson, M.S.; Walsh, S.M.; Clendennen, S.C.; Hooker, S.P.; Evenson, K.R.; Goins, K.V.; Heinrich, K.M.; et al. Physical Activity-Related Policy and Environmental Strategies to Prevent Obesity in Rural Communities: A Systematic Review of the Literature, 2002–2013. Prev. Chronic Dis. 2016, 13, E03. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Castrillon, C.I.M.; Beckenkamp, P.R.; Ferreira, M.L.; Michell, J.A.; de Aguiar Mendes, V.A.; Luscombe, G.M.; Stamatakis, E.; Ferreira, P.H. Are people in the bush really physically active? A systematic review and meta-analysis of physical activity and sedentary behaviour in rural Australians populations. J. Glob. Health 2020, 10, 010410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Lisowski, P.; Kantanista, A.; Bronikowski, M. Are There Any Differences between First Grade Boys and Girls in Physical Fitness, Physical Activity, BMI, and Sedentary Behavior? Results of HCSC Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Spiteri, K.; Broom, D.; Bekhet, A.H.; de Caro, J.X.; Laventure, B.; Grafton, K. Barriers and Motivators of Physical Activity Participation in Middle-aged and Older-adults—A Systematic Review. J. Aging Phys. Act. 2019, 27, 929–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Hills, A.P.; Andersen, L.B.; Byrne, N.M. Physical activity and obesity in children. Br. J. Sport. Med. 2011, 45, 866–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Stodden, D.F.; Goodway, J.D.; Langendorfer, S.J.; Roberton, M.A.; Rudisill, M.E.; Garcia, C.; Garcia, L.E. A Developmental Perspective on the Role of Motor Skill Competence in Physical Activity: An Emergent Relationship. Quest 2008, 60, 290–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Elagizi, A.; Kachur, S.; Carbone, S.; Lavie, C.J.; Blair, S.N. A Review of Obesity, Physical Activity, and Cardiovascular Disease. Curr. Obes. Rep. 2020, 9, 571–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Pont, K.; Ziviani, J.; Wadley, D.; Bennett, S.; Abbott, R. Environmental correlates of children’s active transportation: A systematic literature review. Health Place 2009, 15, 827–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Kajosaari, A.; Laatikainen, T.E. Adults’ leisure-time physical activity and the neighborhood built environment: A contextual perspective. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2020, 19, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Manferdelli, G.; La Torre, A.; Codella, R. Outdoor physical activity bears multiple benefits to health and society. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 2019, 59, 868–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Vieira, D.A.; Lima-Barbosa, M.; Thuany, M.; Gomes, T. Asociación entre comportamientos de riesgo y sobrepeso en adolescentes: Análisis de clases latentes. Cienc. Act. Física (Talca) 2021, 23, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Skender, S.; Ose, J.; Chang-Claude, J.; Paskow, M.; Brühmann, B.; Siegel, E.M.; Steindorf, K.; Ulrich, C.M. Accelerometry and physical activity questionnaires—A systematic review. BMC Public Health 2016, 16, 515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Tremblay, M.S.; LeBlanc, A.G.; Kho, M.E.; Saunders, T.J.; Larouche, R.; Colley, R.C.; Goldfield, G.; Connor Gorber, S. Systematic review of sedentary behaviour and health indicators in school-aged children and youth. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2011, 8, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.