Associations Between Sedentary Behaviour and Fine and Gross Motor Skills in 3‐ to 4‐Year‐Olds: A Secondary Data Analysis From Sunrise International Study Pilot Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The evidence on associations between sedentary behaviour (SB) and motor skills in 3- to 4-year-olds is unclear and mostly from high-income countries. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to examine associations between (1) screen time (h/day) and total daily SB (h/day), and gross and fine motor skills, and (2) meeting the restraint, screen time and overall SB (restraint and screen time) guidelines and fine and gross motor skills. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of 1394 3- to 4-year-olds from the pilot phase of the SUNRISE International study. Time spent in SB was measured using the activPAL accelerometer, whereas screen time and restraint were measured using a parent questionnaire. Fine and gross motor skills were measured using parent-reported Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3). Associations between SB and motor skills were determined using linear and logistic regression, adjusting for sex and socioeconomic status. RESULTS: Every additional 1 h of screen time was associated with 0.50-point reduction in gross motor skills scores (p = 0.008). More screen time was associated with decreased odds of being on track for fine and gross motor skill development (p < 0.001 and p = 0.017, respectively). Meeting the screen time (p = 0.009) and overall SB guidelines (p = 0.006) were favourably associated with fine motor skills scores. Meeting the screen time, restraint and overall SB guidelines were favourably associated with gross motor skills scores (p = 0.007, p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively), higher odds of being on track for fine (p = 0.033, p = 0.015 and p < 0.001, respectively) and gross motor skills (p = 0.006, p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively) development. CONCLUSION: The present study adds to the evidence on the importance of sedentary behaviour for the motor development of 3- to 4-year-olds. It is important that policy makers and health educators develop strategies that will encourage and promote adherence to sedentary behaviour guidelines among 3- and 4-year-olds.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".