Physical activity, screen time and dietary behaviours in New Zealand adolescents prior to and following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Insufficient physical activity, high screen time, and unhealthy dietary patterns among adolescents may have worsened during the pandemic, but data are lacking. This study compared physical activity, screen time and fruit and vegetable intake in adolescents from Dunedin, New Zealand, 5-6 years before (Study 1) and during (Study 2) the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Adolescents completed an online survey as part of the Built Environment and Active Transport to School (BEATS) studies in 2014/2015 (Study 1; n = 1,266; age: 15.3 ± 1.4 years; 54.6% female) and 2021/2022 (Study 2; n = 819; age: 15.2 ± 1.4 years; 47.4% female). The proportion of adolescents meeting guidelines for physical activity (≥ 60 min/day of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity), outside school screen time (≤ 2 h/day) and fruit and vegetable intake (> 1 serving/day for both fruit and vegetables) was calculated. Data were analysed using multivariable linear and logistic regression modelling. RESULTS: Few adolescents met recommended health behaviour guidelines. Compared to Study 1, significantly greater proportions of adolescents at Study 2 met guidelines for physical activity (16.7% vs. 23.1%; p < 0.001) and outside school screen time (13.3% vs. 18.3%; p < 0.001) while fruit and vegetable intake was not different (29.6% vs. 27.0%; p = 0.322). Compared to Study 1, average outside school screen time at Study 2 was lower on both weekdays (5.0 ± 2.9 vs. 4.6 ± 2.9; p < 0.001) and weekend days (6.9 ± 3.5 vs. 6.1 ± 3.6 h/day; p < 0.001). Reported frequency of consuming sweets was higher and soft drinks lower at Study 2 versus Study 1. CONCLUSIONS: Despite observed higher levels of physical activity and lower levels of outside school screen time during the pandemic compared to the pre-pandemic levels, few adolescents met health behaviour guidelines at both time points. Therefore, comprehensive health promotion that aims to improve physical activity levels, screen time and dietary patterns for adolescents is still necessary to prevent chronic health conditions adulthood.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".