Distinguishing associations between neighbourhood features and physical inactivity, sedentary behaviour time, and screen time in boys and girls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Physical inactivity (PI), sedentary behaviour time (SB) and screen time (ST) are related but distinct behaviors for which separate research and environmental intervention frameworks may be warranted. We examined associations between neighbourhood features and PI/SB/ST among boys and girls at risk of obesity at two timepoints, i.e., childhood (8-10 years old) and pre-adolescence (10-12 years old). METHODS: Data were from the QUALITY cohort, an ongoing study of the natural history of obesity in 630 Quebec families. Based on accelerometry, excess PI was defined as accumulating < 60 min/day of moderate to vigorous physical activity and excess SB as recording < 100 counts per minute for > 50% of wear time, and excess ST was based on self report and defined as reporting > 2 h/day of recreational ST. Neighbourhood features including presence of physical activity installations, green space, walkability, traffic indicators, physical disorder and foodscape indicators were measured using direct observation and geographic information systems. Neighbourhood features were measured when children were 8-10 years of age. Separate logistic regression models were estimated at each time point. Models controlled for child's age, parental BMI, parental education, and area-level material deprivation. RESULTS: The odds of excess ST were lower in neighbourhoods with a higher number of parks, across all age and sex groups [ORs ranging from 0.70 (95% CI: 0.54-0.91) to 0.81(95% CI: 0.65-1.01)]. Among boys, the odds of excess SB were lower in neighbourhoods with more physical activity structures (OR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.20-0.99); among girls, the odds of excess SB were lower in neighbourhoods with more sidewalks (OR: 0.67, 95% CI 0.47-0.95) and those that were exclusively residential (OR: 0.13, 95% CI: 0.04-0.45). Few neighbourhood features were associated with PI. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that PI, SB and ST have both shared and distinct environmental determinants among children with parental obesity. While different patterns are likely to emerge across diverse contexts and populations, it remains relevant to consider that transforming specific features of the built environment may be more effective for some outcomes than others, and may not benefit all groups equally.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".