Skip to main content

Table 3 Baseline characteristics by fitness status (fit and low fitness)a

From: Two years of school-based intervention program could improve the physical fitness among Ecuadorian adolescents at health risk: subgroups analysis from a cluster-randomized trial

  P b All Fit Low fit
   n Control Mean (SD) Intervention Mean (SD) n Control Mean (SD) Intervention Mean (SD) n
Age 0.86 1313 12.84 (0.71) 12.86 (0.72) 284 12.90 (0.84) 12.79 (0.78) 1029
Body mass index (kg/m2) <0.001 1313 17.96 (1.80) 17.74 (1.84) 284 20.24 (2.92) 20.30 (3.41) 1029
Body mass index z-score <0.001 1313 −0.22 (0.84) −0.32 (1.04) 284 0.47 (0.97) 0.46 (1.07) 1029
Low socio economic status (%) 0.29 1260 34.39 35.90 274 31.84 31.29 986
Female proportion (%) <0.001 1313 16.56 13.22 284 72.30 78.62 1029
Fitness (EUROFIT)         
Speed-agility         
Speed shuttle run (s) <0.001 1310 23.20 (1.89) 22.72 (1.72) 284 24.96 (2.10) 25.08 (2.25) 1026
Muscle strength and endurance         
Vertical jump (cm) <0.001 1304 28.22 (5.67) 28.89 (5.89) 284 25.29 (5.06) 24.67 (5.30) 1020
Accelerometer data         
% who meet the PA recommendation (60 min MVPA/day) 0.79 219 93.75 90.00 52 90.00 95.87 167
  1. aThe low fit were adolescents who did not reach the health zone according to the FITNESSGRAM standards [31]
  2. bP-value for differences between fit and low fit groups
  3. The analysis was adjusted for the study design