Canadian children and youth with disabilities are not meeting the 24-Hour Movement Guidelines: Cross-sectional results from the national physical activity measurement (NPAM) study for children and youth with disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding patterns of movement behaviours for physical activity (PA), screen time (ST) and sleep in children and youth with disabilities (CYD) can identify participation gaps that inform country-specific intervention and policy. OBJECTIVE: To describe the 24-h movement behaviours and guideline adherence in CYD in Canada. The associations between age, gender, and disability type with meeting movement guidelines were also examined. METHODS: Cross-sectional caregiver-reported data (N = 524 CYD, Mage = 10.3 ± 3.1 years; 70 % boys; 49 % developmental disabilities) were collected on child PA, ST, and sleep. Items were derived from the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children survey, International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Adolescents and the Childhood Obesity, Lifestyle, and the Environment Diet and Lifestyle Questionnaire. Movement behaviours were described for the total sample and by age, gender, and disability type. Logistic regressions tested predictors of meeting the movement guidelines. RESULTS: CYD spent 34.2 ± 37.1 min in moderate-to-vigorous PA, 5.3 ± 3.9 h using screens, and 9.9 ± 1.1 h in sleep. 17.2 %, 20.3 %, and 89.0 % met the individual PA, ST, and sleep guidelines; 4.6 % met all three. Youth were less likely to meet the individual ST and sleep guidelines than children (OR = 0.16); participants with multiple disabilities were less likely to meet the ST guideline than those with developmental disabilities (OR = 0.33; ps < 0.001). Age, gender, and disability type did not significantly predict meeting the PA guideline. CONCLUSION: Most CYD do not meet the Canadian guidelines for PA and ST and the majority meet recommended levels for sleep. Guideline adherence is lower for youth (ST and sleep) and those with multiple disabilities (ST only).
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".