Inequality in physical activity, sedentary behaviour, sleep duration and risk of obesity in children: a 12‐country study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Objective Studies examining associations between movement behaviours (i.e. physical activity, sedentary behaviour and sleep duration) and obesity focus on average values of these movement behaviours, despite important within‐country and between‐country variability. A better understanding of movement behaviour inequalities is important for developing public health policies and behaviour‐change interventions. The objective of this ecologic analysis at the country level was to determine if inequality in movement behaviours is a better correlate of obesity than average movement behaviour volume in children from all inhabited continents of the world. Methods This multinational, cross‐sectional study included 6,128 children 9–11 years of age. Moderate‐to‐vigorous physical activity (MVPA), total sedentary time (SED) and sleep period time were monitored over 7 consecutive days using waist‐worn accelerometry. Screen time was self‐reported. Inequality in movement behaviours was determined using Gini coefficients (ranging from 0 [complete equality] to 1 [complete inequality]). Results The largest inequality in movement behaviours was observed for screen time (Gini of 0.32; medium inequality), followed by MVPA (Gini of 0.21; low inequality), SED (Gini of 0.07; low inequality) and sleep period time (Gini of 0.05; low inequality). Average MVPA (h d−1) was a better correlate of obesity than MVPA inequality (r = −0.77 vs. r = 0.00, p = 0.03). Average SED (h d−1) was also a better correlate of obesity than SED inequality (r = 0.52 vs. r = −0.32, p = 0.05). Differences in associations for screen time and sleep period time were not statistically significant. MVPA in girls was found to be disproportionally lower in countries with more MVPA inequality. Conclusions Findings from this study show that average MVPA and SED should continue to be used in population health studies of children as they are better correlates of obesity than inequality in these behaviours. Moreover, the findings suggest that MVPA inequality could be greatly reduced through increases in girls' MVPA alone.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".