Combination of physical activity and screen time on life satisfaction in adults: A cross-sectional survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Sufficient physical activity (PA) and limited screen time (ST) have been shown to be positively associated with a variety of mental health outcomes. It has been known that PA and ST are independently associated with life satisfaction. Whereas, little is known about the association between combinations of PA and ST with life satisfaction in adults. This study aimed to explore the associations between PA and ST (in insolation or combination) and life satisfaction in adults. Methods: Data from the 2014 European Social Survey (ESS) round 7 consisting of 22 countries were analyzed in this study. In total, self-reported data from 40,185 adults were included in the final analysis. The self-administered method was used to collect demographic information, PA, ST, and life satisfaction. The prevalence of meeting PA guidelines (at least 150 min per week) and ST guidelines (no more than 3 h per day) was calculated according to Canadian 24-h Movement Guidelines for Adults. Results: Adults who were engaged in sufficient PA and limited ST were more likely to report a higher level of life satisfaction. Meeting PA or ST guidelines was more likely to report higher life satisfaction scores [odds ratio (OR) = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.16-1.47]. Compared with not meeting any guidelines, those who met both PA and ST guidelines had a higher OR (OR = 1.55, 95% CI: 1.37-1.76). Conclusion: This study found that participating PA while limiting ST concurrently was linked with better life satisfaction. Creating an active lifestyle is important to population's well-being.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".