Adherence to Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines among infants and associations with development: a longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To examine: 1) longitudinal adherence to the Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines in a sample of infants and 2) associations between adherence to the guidelines over time and development. METHODS: Participants were 250 parent-infant dyads from the Early Movers project in Edmonton, Alberta. At 2, 4, and 6 months of age, physical activity, sedentary behaviour, sleep, and development were measured with a parental questionnaire that included items from the Ages & Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3). Parents also reported the dates six major gross motor milestones were acquired during the first 18 months of life according to World Health Organization criteria. In a sub-sample (n = 93), movement behaviours were also measured with a time-use diary at 2, 4, and 6 months and gross motor development was measured by a physiotherapist using the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS) at 6 months. Guideline adherence was defined as: 1) ≥ 30 min/day of tummy time, 2) no screen time, some reading time, no restrained bouts > 1 h (time-use diary only), and 3) 14-17 h (2 months) or 12-16 h (4 and 6 months) of sleep per 24-h period. Generalized estimating equations were conducted as well as linear mixed models and linear regression models that adjusted for demographic characteristics. RESULTS: Few infants met the guidelines at all time-points (questionnaire: 2%; time-use diary: 0%). Infants that met a recommendation at 2 months, compared to those that did not, were 1.8-8.2 times more likely to meet that recommendation at subsequent time-points. Meeting more recommendations across time-points, according to both measures, was associated with a higher mean ASQ-3 gross motor score. Each additional time-point of tummy time recommendation adherence (questionnaire-measured) was associated with a 5-11-day earlier acquisition of independent sitting, crawling, and independent standing milestones. In the sub-sample, each additional time-point of guideline adherence was associated with a 16% higher AIMS score at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Guideline adherence was low across the first 6 months of infancy. Overall, meeting more recommendations over this period appeared important for gross motor development. Parents and caregivers should be targeted as early as possible with guideline dissemination and activation strategies to promote healthy infant development.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".