Comparação das pressões respiratórias máximas entre escolares das redes pública e privada

0Citations
Citations of this article
10Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the values of maximal inspiratory pressures (MIP) and maximal expiratory pressures (MEP) between students from public and private schools. Methods: Observational cross-sectional study of 144 children from public and private schools. Maximal respiratory pressures were measured with an MVD300 (Globalmed®). Student's t-test was applied to compare average pressures and chi-square test was used to compare the frequency of children who performed or not physical activity. Results: Students from private and public schools showed a mean MIP of 77.0±21.5 and 65.7±18.7cmH 2O (p=0.002) and MEP of 90.1±22.5 and 79.4±19.0cmH 2O (p=0.005), respectively. Boys from private and public schools showed a mean MIP of 85.0±20.8 and 74.4±17.1cmH 2O (p=0.051) and MEP of 98.5±22.5 and 89.2±16.3cmH 2O (p=0.103), respectively. Girls from private and public schools showed a mean MIP of 70.0±19.8 and 60.2±17.8cmH 2O (p=0.027) and MEP of 82.6±20.0 and 73.2±18.1cmH 2O (p=0.035), respectively. Approximately 40% of public school students performed physical activity, in private schools, this percentage was 95%. Children who performed or not physical activity showed a mean MIP of 76.0±20.7 and 63.2±20.0cmH 2O (p=0.002) and MEP of 89.0±21.6 and 77.4±20.5cmH 2O (p=0.006), respectively. Conclusions: Respiratory muscle strength of students from private schools was significantly higher than that of students from public schools, especially among girls, and possibly related to the practice of physical activity, more frequent in private schools.

Author supplied keywords

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Chaves, G. S. S., Campos, T. F., Borja, R. de O., de Freitas, D. A., Mendes, R. E. F., Parreira, V. F., & de Mendonça, K. M. P. P. (2012). Comparação das pressões respiratórias máximas entre escolares das redes pública e privada. Revista Paulista de Pediatria, 30(2), 244–250. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-05822012000200014

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free