Adherence to Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines among infants and associations with development: a longitudinal study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: To examine: 1) longitudinal adherence to the Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines in a sample of infants and 2) associations between adherence to the guidelines over time and development. METHODS: Participants were 250 parent-infant dyads from the Early Movers project in Edmonton, Alberta. At 2, 4, and 6 months of age, physical activity, sedentary behaviour, sleep, and development were measured with a parental questionnaire that included items from the Ages & Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3). Parents also reported the dates six major gross motor milestones were acquired during the first 18 months of life according to World Health Organization criteria. In a sub-sample (n = 93), movement behaviours were also measured with a time-use diary at 2, 4, and 6 months and gross motor development was measured by a physiotherapist using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) at 6 months. Guideline adherence was defined as: 1) ≥ 30 min/day of tummy time, 2) no screen time, some reading time, no restrained bouts > 1 h (time-use diary only), and 3) 14-17 h (2 months) or 12-16 h (4 and 6 months) of sleep per 24-h period. Generalized estimating equations were conducted as well as linear mixed models and linear regression models that adjusted for demographic characteristics. RESULTS: Few infants met the guidelines at all time-points (questionnaire: 2%; time-use diary: 0%). Infants that met a recommendation at 2 months, compared to those that did not, were 1.8-8.2 times more likely to meet that recommendation at subsequent time-points. Meeting more recommendations across time-points, according to both measures, was associated with a higher mean ASQ-3 gross motor score. Each additional time-point of tummy time recommendation adherence (questionnaire-measured) was associated with a 5-11-day earlier acquisition of independent sitting, crawling, and independent standing milestones. In the sub-sample, each additional time-point of guideline adherence was associated with a 16% higher AIMS score at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Guideline adherence was low across the first 6 months of infancy. Overall, meeting more recommendations over this period appeared important for gross motor development. Parents and caregivers should be targeted as early as possible with guideline dissemination and activation strategies to promote healthy infant development.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».