A Cross‐Sectional Examination of Movement Behaviours and Guideline Adherence Rates Among Preschool‐Aged Children With Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Meeting the 24-h movement behaviour guidelines (hereafter 'guidelines') supports healthy growth and development. It is recommended that preschool-aged children engage daily in 180 min of physical activity (PA), 60 min of which are moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA), along with less than 1 h of screen time and 10-13 h of sleep for optimal health. However, research on movement behaviours among children with disabilities in the early years is limited. This study aimed to describe movement behaviours and guideline adherence rates among preschool-aged children with disabilities. METHODS: A cross-sectional subanalysis was conducted of caregivers of young children (aged 4 years) with a disability (N = 31; 65% boys, 55% with a developmental disability) who were part of a Canadian study on movement behaviours in children and youth with disabilities. Caregiver-reported PA, screen time and sleep behaviours were collected using an online survey. Descriptive statistics were used to describe children's movement behaviours and proportion meeting the guidelines. RESULTS: On average, children engaged in 108 min (SD = 89.9) of total PA and 40 min (SD = 47.0) of MVPA per day. Children engaged in an average of 3.5 h (SD = 2.4) of screen time per day and slept an average of 10.6 h (SD = 1.0) per night. Overall, 23.1%, 6.9% and 79.3% of children met the guidelines for PA, screen time and sleep, respectively. One child (4.3%) met all three guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Few children with disabilities met the preschool-aged PA and screen time guidelines, though most met the sleep guideline. These findings highlight the need to further examine adherence of movement behaviour guidelines among a more representative sample of young children with disabilities and factors influencing adherence.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".