Physical activity, screen time and sleep duration: Combined associations with psychosocial health among Canadian children and youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Canada recently adopted the 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Children and Youth (24-Hour Guidelines) for young people aged 5 to 17 years-an international first, providing integrated recommendations for physical activity, sedentary time and sleep. Since the release of the guidelines, very few studies have examined the associations of adherence to the 24-Hour Guidelines with health outcomes-and none focus on psychosocial health. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess the associations of meeting the 24-Hour Guidelines and their behaviour-specific recommendations with psychosocial health among Canadian children and youth. DATA AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 4,250 children and youth aged 5 to 17 years with valid accelerometer data. The study data were collected from 2009 to 2015 with the Canadian Health Measures Survey and pooled. Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity was measured using accelerometers; screen time, sleep duration and measures of psychosocial health were self- or proxy-reported. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine the associations of meeting individual or different combined recommendations from the 24-Hour Guidelines with psychosocial health. RESULTS: There was low overall adherence to all three 24-Hour Guidelines recommendations, especially among youth (children: 13.9%, youth: 4.8%). Meeting two or more of the recommendations was associated with higher odds of positive psychosocial health among youth (odds ratio [OR] = 3.10; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17-8.19). Sleep duration and screen time were strongly associated with social behaviour and psychosocial health among Canadian youth. DISCUSSION: Adherence to the 24-Hour Guidelines was significantly associated with better psychosocial health among Canadian youth.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".