The effects of various family conditions on participation in sport and physical activity amongst children in Canada
(Page 1) Introduction: Description of the Social Problem (Decline of physical activity in Canada)
Introduction
From catching your first ball with your dad to watching your children play soccer, Canadian family dynamics has a long-standing influence on physical activity and sport. Statistics Canada has stated that the overall population’s participation in sport is declining (Statistics Canada, 2014). This paper sets out to become aware of the primary barriers to sports participation in families with an objective to have a greater understanding of these barriers and consider possible changes to remedy the situation.
Decline in Canadian Sports Participation (on the side cuz it’s a sub to the intro)
According to recent studies, sport participation is defined as partaking in a sport activity such as football, soccer as well as leisure activities such as walks, once a week for a minimum of 30 minutes (Ruseski, Humphreys, Hallmann & Breuer, 2011). In Canada, participation in sports is declining and has been for many years (Holt, Kingsley, Tink & Scherer, 2011) (Statistics Canada, 2014). As of 1992, multiple surveys presented that 45% of Canadians, 15 and older, participated in sport and physical activity, dropping to 34% of the population by 1998 and 28% by 2005 (Ifedi, 2005). This is partly due to the fact that between 1991 and 2005, Canada recorded a significant increase in the proportion of the population aged 65 and over, and children under the age of 15 dropped from 20.7% in 1991 to 17.6% in 2005 due to low fertility rates (Ifedi, 2005). In 2009, the physical activity level of Canadian children indicated that only 4% of girls and 9% of boys with a total of 13% were meeting the new Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines (Statistics Canada, 2009). However, looking at recent statistics in 2016, the updated Canadian report card results concluded that only 9% of children ages 9-17 were involved in the required levels of physical activity (Participation Report Card, 2016). Another interesting point highlighted in research, is a shift from people physically engaging in sport to watching sport instead with 40% of people choosing to take the sidelines in 2010 rather than partaking in activity (Canadian Heritage, 2013).
This overall decline in children’s sports participation has been associated by some researchers with several reasons, for example, the contemporary changes in family-life including the acceptance of non-traditional families (single parent households, blended families, etc.), as well as, an increase in working mothers and general family time constraints (Ruseski et al., 2011). Studies of family and sport attempt to understand a range of topics and subjects in regard to every aspect of family life, such as parenthood, socialization, and education. These dynamics greatly influence both the desire to participate in sport as well as the opportunities that are available to engage in sport.
Causes
(Page 2-3) Paragraph 2: Causes (Barriers to participation)
– Family structure
– Time constraints
– Socioeconomic status
– Rise of video games/tv watching
After reviewing related research, it became clear that the most research regarding the causes to the decline in sports participation in Canadian families are family structure, socioeconomic status, time constraints and sedentary behaviours.
Family Structure
According to recent studies, sport participation is defined as partaking in sport activity such as football, soccer as well as leisure activities such as walks once a week for a minimum of 30 minutes (Ruseski, Humphreys, Hallmann & Breuer, 2011). Through the various articles reviewed, it is shown that the structure of a family (e.g. single parent, blended families, etc.) has a significant impact on sport participation (Farrel & Shields, 2002) (McMillan, McIsaac, & Janssen, 2016). Articles focused on measuring variables such as size of the household, as well as the primary caregivers’ marital status and their influence on their children. For example, research by Farrel & Shields (2002) investigated how the expansion within a family has an effect on parents’ physical exercise. For instance, having more children was discovered as having a positive impact on fathers’ levels of physical activity and sport participation (Farrel & Shields, 2002). Whereas, for mothers, having children has been documented as having either no effect or a negative effect on their participation (Farrel & Shields, 2002). And, overall parental participation in physical (Farrel & Shields, 2002) exercise/sport is a predictor of their children’s participation in sport.
To continue, research by McMillan, et al. (2016) explored the relationship between non-traditional family structure and custody arrangements and youths’ participation in organized sport. They discovered that though sport is often continued if introduced when young, findings show that children from reconstructed single parent families were less likely to participate in organized sport than those living in the traditional family regardless of custody arrangements (McMillan, et al, 2016). Contrastively, they also discovered that kids who visited nonresidential parents on a regular basis, were equally likely to participate in organized sport (McMillan, et al, 2016). Supporting research provided reasons as to why children’s participation in organized sport varies based on family structure. They stated that: 1) step parents are not as involved with their step children, 2) on average there is a lower socioeconomic status in reconstructed families, and 3) youth from reconstituted families and two parent families have an elevated chance of transitioning between single and reconstituted family households (Tillman, 2007). In all, family structure changes, whether it be the addition of children within a traditional family or the reconstitution of a blended family, can create barriers to the families’ participation in sport.
Socioeconomic Status
To begin, Schoh (1995) stated that poverty has a large effect on children. Poverty within a family context leads to divorce, single parenthood, family violence and low education levels (Schoh, 1995). As family income increases so does parent engagement in their children’s life, which includes sport and physical exercise (Schoh, 1995). Encouraging children to participate in sport is seen as improving relationships with significant others (parents, coaches, etc.), as well as, improving children’s social abilities and teamwork skills (Holt, et al, 2011) (Vital Signs, n.d.). Unfortunately, not all children have the opportunities to participate in sport activities. For example, McMillan et al. (2016), discovered that youths’ (5-19 year olds) participation in sport decreases based on household income. This is often due to these families having difficulties making the large financial commitments associated with organized sport (Holt, et al, 2011) (Canadian Heritage, 2013). Instead, these families involve their children in community based physical activity (Schoh, 1995). In an interview-based study on lower-income families conducted by Holt et al., (2011), many of these families stated that they were willing to provide some form of financial compromise allowing their children to participate in sport even though it may limit their spending in other areas (Holt, et al, 2011). Finally, in this research, families agreed that their children’s sport participation not only positively benefited their child’s social and personal life, but the overall family’s quality of life (Holt, et al, 2011). To continue, as discussed in the earlier section of this review, family structure plays an important part in levels of physical activity. McMillan et al. (2016) stated that the relationship between family structure and organized sport participation is partly facilitated by wealth. Generally, in blended/non-traditional families, the income level is lower in comparison to the traditional family, hence, decreasing their involvement in physical activity and organized sports (McMillan, et. Al, 2016). That being said, McMillan et al.’s (2016) results did indicate that the relationship between family structure, low-socioeconomic status, and physical activity was not as a strong as they had anticipated and that perhaps other factors such as access to sport facilities, general sport behaviors, and overall parental support may equally contribute to physical activity and ultimately sport involvement.
Time Constraints
The relationship between income, family structure, and time constraints is quite significant (Ruseski et al., 2011). Ruseski et al. (2011) concluded that there is a direct link between the amount of leisure time an individual has and his/her participation in physical activity and sport. For example, married couples are less likely than single individuals to participate in physical activity due to household tasks, such as caring for children (Ruseski, et al, 2011). In addition, research by Wicker, Breuer, Pawlowsky, (2009) concluded that there is a negative correlation between the amount of time needed to care for relatives/family members and physical activity. This ultimately relates to family structure, as the more people that live in the household, the less likely one is able to participate in physical activity (Wicker, et al. 2009). Wicker et al. (2009) also stated that parental working time has a positive effect on children’s and parents’ physical activity as they use exercise to compensate for their long work/school hours. In contrast to Wicker et al. (2009), more recent research commented that lower-income families typically spend more time working to generate more income and, therefore, have less time for leisure (Ruseski, et al, 2011). However, it is important to note that both the latter studies were conducted in small German communities; therefore, caution should be used in generalizing to the broader Canadian population.
Sedentary behaviour
Sedentary behaviors refer to the energy one puts out (i.e. 1.5 METs) reflecting on individuals who spend extended hours in a “sitting or reclined position” (Sedentary Behaviour Research Network, 2012). In many cases and different research topics, sedentary behaviors is one of the most significant factors that increase the risk of negative health, whereas people who engage in regular physical activity may not experience the same health issues (Herman, K. M., Hopman, W. M., & Sabiston, C. M., 2015). In an article by Teixeira, P. J., Carraça, E. V., Markland, D., Silva, M. N., & Ryan, R. M. (2012), it was said that “People may not be sufficiently interested in exercise, or value its outcomes enough to make it a priority in their lives” (Teixeria et al (2012), which mirrors on the previous barriers that were indicated in this paper. As discussed, family structure, SES, and time constraints can directly impact people’s willingness and motivation to engage in regular physical activity (Ruseski et al., 2011), which has directed us to study the increasing popularity in social media and technology. Research links physical activity and screen time amongst youth to various mental health issues which include depression, anxiety, self-esteem, and stress (Herman et al., 2015). A recent study conducted by Colley R.C, Garriguet D, Janssen I, Craig C.L., Clarke J, Tremblay M.S., (2011), concluded that less than 10% of Canadian youth are failing to successfully implement the minimum 60min of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity according to the Canadian physical activity guidelines (Tremblay M.S, Leblanc A.G, Janssen I, Kho M.E, Hicks A, Murumets K, Colley R.C, Duggan M., 2011) in their daily routine, and spend on average 8.6 hours per “waking day” engaging in sedentary activity (Colley, et al., 2011).
A recent study by McMillan, R., McIsaac, M., Janssen, I., (2015)., determined that indeed family structure has a correlation when observing youth’s health outcomes. Furthermore, McMillan et al. (2015), discussed different family structures in society, and how it may impact the amount of time children spend watching tv, playing video games, and engaging in non-physical activity. Results show that youth and children from non-traditional families (blended, same sex, inter-racial) have a small increase in screen time as compared to children from traditional family structures (McMillan et al., 2015). On the other hand, this area of the study concluded that the slight increases in screen time (estimated 5h more per week), had little to no impact on children and their family structure (McMillan et al., 2015). In contrast, results from the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity (2012) also researched this issue, and their conclusion when observing different parts of the world is that children from lower income households had more access to media and screens (in their bed rooms) than children from higher SES families. For example, 52% (low SES) vs 14% (high SES) had a tv, 21% (low SES) vs 9% (high SES) also had video game consoles (Tandon, P.S., Zhou, C., Sallis, J.F., Cain, K.L., Frank, L.D., Saelens, B.E., 2012). Furthermore, the increased screen time for lower SES families and children were also examined and concluded that due to accessibility to “outside equipment” such as a bike, jump ropes, etc., they spend most of their days indoors (Tandon, et al. 2012). On average, children from higher SES had about 1.7h per day of screen time, where youth from lower SES households had about 2.4h per day due to the observed increases in parent-child tv time (Tandon et al., 2012).
Thus, it is important to further explore how low levels of physical activity and high levels of sedentary behaviors are inter connected with ones self-perceptions of health, including a broader understanding of mental health in most of the youth population (Herman et al., 2015). Although there are many unanswered questions on this topic, majority of research indicates that in order for children to maintain a good health, they should maintain a stable level of physical activity.
(Page 4-5) Paragraph 3: Effect and Consequences
-Negative health effects
Negative Health Effects
The negative health effects of the decline in sports participation and, as well, general physical inactivity raise a cause for concern. Physical inactivity in children has been associated with decreased mental and physical health (Janssen & LeBlanc, 2010). Over the past 25 years, the frequency of obesity in children and adolescence has risen significantly, with the majority occurring in economically developed countries (Shields, 2006) which includes Canada. The relatively low rates of physical activity in Canada have been reported as youth have consistently received failing grades on the Active Healthy Kids Report Card (Active Healthy Kids Canada, 2010). This was and is still seen as a public health crisis that requires attention, resources, and adaptations (Reilly & Kelly, 2011). Research has shown that childhood obesity can be a cause of morbidity, mortality, and other significant illnesses once in adulthood (Reilly & Kelly, 2011).
Even modest amounts of physical activity can result in significant health benefits in high risk youth (e.g., high blood pressure) (Janssen & LeBlanc, 2010).
With the lack of physical activity amongst much of the youth population, there are many other positive outcomes that fail to be reached. For example, encouraging children to participate in sport is seen as improving relationships with significant others (parents, coaches, etc.), as well as, improving children’s social abilities and team work skills (Holt et al, 2011). Furthermore, there are also personal benefits, such as, increased emotional control, an increase in confidence/self-esteem, more discipline, and an increase in academic performance (Holt et al, 2011). Also, studies have suggested that physical activity provides antidepressant and anti-anxiety effects (Harvey, Hotopf, Overland & Mykletun, 2010). Thus, through sport, children are seen to have an increase in mental health and overall life satisfaction (Vital Signs, n.d.). Some of the statistics gathered within youth demonstrated 71% of sports participants have good or excellent mental health, whereas, this number drops to 59% of non-participants (Vital Signs, n.d.).
(Page 6-7) Paragraph 4: Analysis – discuss how the social problem can be examined through the lense of your choice of sociological approach
Talk about it’s relationship to class notes
– POPULATION HEALTH
– Determinants of HEALTH
Analysis
Population health is sociological approach that aims to improve the health of an entire society, and eliminating the health inequalities that exist between the social groups (Tepperman, L. & Curtis, J., 2015). A main factor in this approach, is focusing on how the determinants of health in essence cause social problems. The determinants of health focus on economic and social issues that are delivered amongst individuals in different health categories (Braveman, P. and Gottlieb, L, 2014). They are health factors that are implemented in ones living and working conditions (i.e. the income distribution, wealth, influence, and power), rather than individual risk factors (such as behavioural risk factors or genetics) that will lead to negative health conditions (Simandan, D., 2018). Factors such as “income and social factors, social support networks, education, employment, working and living conditions, physical and social environment, biology and genes, health practices, stress, coping skills, quality of life, childhood development, health services, gender and culture, and more” (P.22), are all examples of determinants that overlap with one another in a complex way that describe the overall global health (Tepperman, L., & Curtis, J., 2015). The social problem being the decreasing physical activity levels in Canada can be examined through this lens, the more attention is focused on the decline in health problems, the more society view this as a social problem (Tepperman, L., & Curtis, J., 2015). In most cases, we observe the social problems by focusing on micro issues, meaning looking at obesity, cardio vascular, and other health illness, linking the focus on how individuals make the wrong choices. In turn, the appropriate approach to measure the issue would be to observe the decline in sport participation as a macro cause. Macrosociology approach focuses on how events at the personal level (micro) are interconnected with what happens in the broader society (macro) (Tepperman, L., & Curtis, J., 2015).
(Page 8) Conclusion: summing what, why, how and final say.
– Mention new generation of changes in family structure
– Increase of multiculturalism, decrease in religion
– Research
Conclusion
Understanding the barriers that affect Canadian families’ sports participation is the starting point to help make changes in both school and community programing aimed at children’s sport activity. With the continuing shift in Canadian family dynamics, the barriers addressed in this paper are not likely to change in the near future without consideration. School boards and individuals responsible for community programming might consider adjustments, such as, available practice time for sports teams during lunch hours (within school day), keeping costs of city programing low, educating community and school coaches to be better aware of family issues and needs (e.g. suggesting ride sharing, etc.) and possibly, having access to funds to help aid a student financially (e.g. school funds uniforms, tournament fees for low income families).
In all, the issues surrounding time constraints, family structure, and socioeconomic status and sedentary behaviour are seen as significant influences as to why families and children could be limited in their participation in sport. The aforementioned articles discuss how a family’s structure can directly influence their economic status and their time allocation for physical activity as well as their perceptions on the benefits of sport. As the research pointed out, sport participation has been on a constant decline, and has yet to be resolved. If something is not done to increase physical exercise in Canadian youth from a young age, health and social problems may continue to increase with time. One can hope that future research regarding the complexity of family-life and its power over exercise will aid in increasing the overall health of Canadian families.