Meeting 24‐h movement guidelines: Prevalence, correlates, and associations with socioemotional behavior in Spanish minors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aims of this study were to determine for the first time the prevalence of a national sample of Spanish minors meeting the 24-h movement guidelines; to determine their correlates; and to examine their associations with socioemotional behavioral problems. Cross-sectional data from the Spanish National Health Survey (2017) were analyzed for this study. A total of 3772 Spanish minors were included. Physical activity was parent-reported by a modified short version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire, which included a single question related to the participation in physical activity in free time. Recreational screen time was parent-reported by asking respondents for weekdays and weekends independently: "How much time does your child typically spend in front of a screen, including a computer, tablet, television, video, video game, or cell phone screen?". Sleep duration was parent-reported by the following question: "Can you tell me approximately how many hours your child usually sleeps daily?". The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire was applied for the evaluation of socioemotional behavioral problems. The prevalence of meeting of all the three guidelines was 13.5%. Compared to meeting all guidelines, higher odds of socioemotional behavioral problems were found in participants meeting two guidelines (OR = 1.42; CI95%, 1.10-1.83), one guideline (OR = 1.50; 95%CI,1.14-1.96), or none of the guidelines (OR = 1.92; 95%CI,1.30-2.83). Our study demonstrated that the proportion of Spanish minors who meet with all the 24-h movement guidelines is low. Furthermore, it could be relevant to the promotion of the 24-h movement guidelines to prevent the risk of socioemotional behavioral problems.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".