School Backpack Weight Research Articles

The impact of a school backpack's weight, which is carried on the back of a 7-year-old students of both sexes, on the features of body posture in the frontal plane

BackgroundThe lifestyle of children has a significant impact on the future health of the whole society. Therefore, health education, prevention and monitoring of health determinants is important at every stage of ontogenesis. This requires a thorough knowledge of the schoolchild's environment, perceived as a wide set of stressors, including not only genetic but also epigenetic factors. One of them is the issue of the correct and abnormal body posture at school and on the way there. The goal of the study was to show the influence of the weight of the back carried container with school supplies on body posture.MethodThe research was carried out as part of a project that examined the impact of carrying weights, which are school supplies, by children on their posture. The research material consisted of data obtained from a group of 65 students (35 girls, 30 boys) aged 7 years. Body posture tests were carried out, using the projection moiré method in 4 positions: 1-habitual posture, 2-posture after 10-min of asymmetric axial load, 3-a posture after 1 min of the load removal, 4-a posture after two minutes of the load removal. Physical fitness was measured with the Sekita test. The obtained data were statistically analyzed.ResultsThe significance of differences between the 1st and 2nd measurements was analyzed to determine the impact of the backpack load and the correlation with physical fitness, and to study its influence on the value of the differences in posture features. Considering the differences in the volume of posture features among boys between the 1st and 2nd measurement, the Wilcoxon’s rank test showed a statistically significant difference in the range of all analyzed variables, except for the torso bend angle to the right (KNT+), where no statistically significant change was noted. A statistically significant difference in the volume of all analyzed variables was observed among the girls.ConclusionsCarrying school supplies on the back induces significant changes in the value of the features describing the body posture in the frontal plane. The greater weight of the container and carrying time, and intensity of physical effort is the greater the changes will be. Physical fitness has a various and sex-dependent influence on the value of changes in body posture features because of carrying school supplies. Among boys it significantly affects the asymmetry of the torso bend, shoulder height, the waist triangles height and width, whereas among girls it affects the asymmetry of the shoulders and the distance of the angles of the lower shoulder blades from the line of the spinous processes of the spine. Among boys the changes in the value of posture features are mostly influenced by endurance and speed, but strength, power and agility are of lower influence, whereas among girls only agility matters.

Association between School Backpack Weight and the Appearance of Postural Changes in School-Age Children

Association between School Backpack Weight and the Appearance of Postural Changes in School-Age Children

Excess weight of school backpacks: a study in Portuguese second cycle students

Excess weight of school backpacks: a study in Portuguese second cycle students

Analysis of the weight of school backpack with double strapson the postural control of children

To investigate the influence of the weight of school backpacks on postural control of children. Cross-sectional study in healthy children aged eight years old. The postural control was evaluated on the force plate (FP) and the Timed Up and Go test (TUG) in three distinct conditions: without backpack (WB), and the backpack adjusted with 5% (.5) and 10% (. 10) of body mass. 90 children were evaluated, and 80% of them used backpacks with two shoulder straps, and 16% of the children carried over 10% of their body mass in the backpacks. Regarding the postural control with load on school backpack, there was increase in the sway area of the center of pressure (A-COP.WB = 6.92 cm²; A-COP.5 = 8.39 cm²; A-COP.10 = 7.96 cm²) and time, in seconds, the performance of the TUG (TUG.WB = 4.75 s; TUG.5 = 4.99 s; TUG.10 = 5.06 s), with statistically significant difference between the loads (p = 0.0001; p = 0.0005), respectively. The anteroposterior (VELAP.SM = 2.41cm s-1; VELAP.5 = 2.30 cm s-1; VELAP.10 = 2.22 cm s-1; p = 0.0001) and mediolateral velocity (VELML.WB = 2.38 cm s-1; VELML.5 = 2.28 cm s-1; VELML.10 = 2.20 cm s-1; p = 0.0001) had a decrease in the median values with statistically significant difference in different conditions. School backpack load increased the COP area, the time of the TUG and modified the response mechanisms. Therefore, loads up to 5% of body mass imposed on school backpack have negatively influenced the postural control.

Quality of life, school backpack weight, and nonspecific low back pain in children and adolescents

ObjectivesTo describe the degree of disability, anthropometric variables, quality of life (QoL), and school backpack weight in boys and girls aged 11-17 years. The differences in QoL between those who did or did not report low back pain (LBP) were also analyzed. MethodsEighty-six girls (13.9±1.9 years of age) and 63 boys (13.7±1.7 years of age) participated. LBP was assessed by questionnaire, and disability using the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. QoL was assessed by the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL). Multivariate analyses of variance and covariance were used to assess differences between groups. ResultsGirls reported higher disability than boys (p=0.01), and lower QoL in the domains of physical (p<0.001) and emotional functioning (p<0.01), psychosocial health (p=0.02) and physical health summary score (p<0.001), and on the total PedsQL score (p<0.01). School backpack weight was similar in both genders (p=0.61) and in participants with and without LBP (p=0.15). After adjustments, participants with LBP reported lower physical functioning (p<0.01), influencing lower physical health summary score (p<0.01). ConclusionsGirls had higher disability and lower QoL than boys in the domains of physical and emotional functioning, psychosocial health, and physical health summary scores, and on the total PedsQL score; however, similar school backpack weight was reported. Participants with LBP revealed lower physical functioning and physical health summary score, yet had similar school backpack weight to those without LBP.

Quality of life, school backpack weight, and nonspecific low back pain in children and adolescents

ObjectivesTo describe the degree of disability, anthropometric variables, quality of life (QoL), and school backpack weight in boys and girls aged 11-17 years. The differences in QoL between those who did or did not report low back pain (LBP) were also analyzed. MethodsEighty-six girls (13.9±1.9 years of age) and 63 boys (13.7±1.7 years of age) participated. LBP was assessed by questionnaire, and disability using the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. QoL was assessed by the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL). Multivariate analyses of variance and covariance were used to assess differences between groups. ResultsGirls reported higher disability than boys (p=0.01), and lower QoL in the domains of physical (p<0.001) and emotional functioning (p<0.01), psychosocial health (p=0.02) and physical health summary score (p<0.001), and on the total PedsQL score (p<0.01). School backpack weight was similar in both genders (p=0.61) and in participants with and without LBP (p=0.15). After adjustments, participants with LBP reported lower physical functioning (p<0.01), influencing lower physical health summary score (p<0.01). ConclusionsGirls had higher disability and lower QoL than boys in the domains of physical and emotional functioning, psychosocial health, and physical health summary scores, and on the total PedsQL score; however, similar school backpack weight was reported. Participants with LBP revealed lower physical functioning and physical health summary score, yet had similar school backpack weight to those without LBP.

Effects of a postural education program on school backpack habits related to low back pain in children

Population based studies have demonstrated that children and adolescents often complain of low back pain. A group-randomized controlled trial was carried out to investigate the effects of a postural education program on school backpack habits related to low back pain in children aged 10-12 year. The study sample included 137 children aged 10.7 years (SD = 0.672). Six classes from two primary schools were randomly allocated into experimental group (EG) (N = 63) or control group (CG) (N = 74). The EG received a postural education program over 6 weeks consisting of six sessions, while the CG followed the usual school curriculum. A questionnaire was fulfilled by the participants at pre-test, post-test, and 3 months after the intervention finished. The outcomes collected were: (1) try to load the minimum weight possible, (2) carry school backpack on two shoulders, (3) belief that school backpack weight does not affect to the back, and (4) the use of locker or something similar at school. A sum score was computed from the four items. Single healthy items mostly improved after the intervention and remained improved after 3-month follow-up in EG, while no substantial changes were observed in the CG. Healthy backpack use habits score was significantly increased at post-test compared to baseline in the EG (P < 0.000), and remained significantly increased after 3-month, compared to baseline (P = 0.001). No significant changes were observed in the CG (P > 0.2). The present study findings confirm that children are able to learn healthy backpack habits which might prevent future low back pain.

Effect of carrying school backpacks on cardio-respiratory changes in adolescent students

Fifteen male high school students (12.5±0.5 years) voluntarily participated in this study. They carried backpacks with 0 (as a control group), 8, 10.5 and 13% of their body weights on a treadmill at 1.1 m/s for 15 min. Their systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure was measured by a digital blood pressure meter, and heart rate (HR), minute ventilation (MV) and respiratory frequency (RF) by a Gas Analyzer System, in 3 positions: rest, exercise (15 min walking) and recovery (3 min after walking). The results indicated that the SBP and MV during and 3 min after carrying backpacks 10.5 and 13% of body weight were significantly higher than under 0 and 8% body weight load conditions. The DBP increased significantly only at the 13% body weight load condition, after 15 min of walking. The weight of school backpacks for high school students can be recommended as 8% of their body weight, because carrying 8% body weight load did not significantly change cardio-respiratory parameters.

Association of Relative Backpack Weight With Reported Pain, Pain Sites, Medical Utilization, and Lost School Time in Children and Adolescents

There is debate about a 10% versus 15% of body weight cutoff point for safe weight of school backpacks. Estimation of the cutoff may be affected by use of survey methods and failure to assess pain experienced while wearing a backpack. Previous research also suggests that younger students and females are more at risk for developing backpack pain. Five hundred and thirty-one 5th- to 12th-grade Northern California students and their backpacks were weighed. Students were individually interviewed about how often they experienced pain while carrying a backpack, the site of their pain, and if the pain had interfered with school activities or led to medical care. Data support the use of a 10% of body weight cutoff for safe use of backpacks for all grade levels. Younger students and females are more at risk due to relatively lower body weight while females also carry heavier backpacks than males. Greater relative backpack weight is associated with upper- and mid-back pain reports but not neck or lower back pain; it is also associated with lost school time, lost school sports time, and greater chiropractic utilization. The 10% cutoff is recommended along with a variety of practical methods to help schools achieve that goal for middle and high school students.