Relationships of physical activity and sedentary behaviour with the previous and subsequent nights’ sleep in children and youth: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The interrelationships between sleep and daytime movement behaviours have been examined at interindividual level. Studies of within‐person, temporal relationships of daytime physical activity (PA) and sedentary behaviour with the previous and subsequent nights’ sleep are increasing. The present systematic review and meta‐analysis synthesised the results of studies in school‐aged children and youth. Eight databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Global Health, PubMed, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL) were searched for peer‐reviewed articles that examined the association between daytime movement behaviours (including PA, sedentary time, or sedentary recreational screen time) and night‐time sleep on the same day, or the association between night‐time sleep and daytime movement behaviours the next day, in children and youth. A total of 11 studies comprising 9,622 children and youth aged 5–15 years met the inclusion criteria. Sedentary time was negatively associated with the subsequent night’s sleep duration ( r = −0.12, 95% confidence interval −0.23 to −0.00; I 2 = 93%; p = .04). Positive relationships between PA and the previous or subsequent night’s sleep duration were observed only for studies that adjusted for accelerometer wear time. There was some evidence suggesting that a longer sleep duration was associated with less sedentary time and a higher proportion of the daytime spent being physically active and vice versa, although the association was weak and based on a limited number of studies. From a clinical perspective, promotion of either sleep hygiene or daytime PA should be planned with considerations of the virtuous or vicious circle between these behaviours and monitor concurrent effects on the others.
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 | 0.015 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".