Associations between parent and child 24-hour movement behaviours across the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parents influence and support children's healthy movement behaviours (physical activity, sedentary time, sleep). During the COVID-19 pandemic, families spent even more time together. Thus, parents likely had greater influence on their child's movement behaviours than usual. This study assessed the associations between parent and child movement behaviours and compliance with movement behaviour guidelines at two time points during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: National samples of parents of children and adolescents (5-17 years) living in Canada completed online surveys about their own and their child's movement behaviours in October 2020 (n = 1,568, 58% women) and April 2021 (n = 1,600, 60% women). Associations between parent and child movement behaviours and compliance with 24-hour movement behaviour guidelines were examined. RESULTS: We observed mostly positive, significant correlations between parent and child movement behaviours in October 2020 (r = 0.12-0.26, p < 0.05) and April 2021 (r = 0.12-0.20, p < 0.05). A parent meeting an individual movement behaviour guideline (e.g., physical activity) was associated with an overall higher incidence of their child meeting the same guideline in October 2020 (Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR):=1.10-3.06) and April 2021 (IRR: 1.19-2.26). The incidence of children meeting the 24-hour movement guidelines in October 2020 (IRR = 3.06, 95% CI: 1.55, 6.04) and in April 2021 (IRR = 2.26, 95% CI: 1.34, 3.83) was higher when parents met the 24-hour movement guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Parent and child movement behaviours were associated with one another during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly for children (compared with adolescents). In times of severe public health restrictions, health promotion efforts should target family units to promote healthy movement of families collectively.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".