A longitudinal, two-cohort study of parenting influences on adolescent physical activity and screen-time during the transition to secondary school in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Parents influence children's lifestyle behaviors, though this influence may decline as children gain autonomy. However, the COVID-19 pandemic likely altered these dynamics due to increased time at home. We examined whether associations between parenting practices and adolescents' physical activity and recreational screen-time changed during the transition to secondary school in two cohorts: one assessed pre-pandemic and one during the pandemic. Methods: Data were collected in British Columbia (2018-2021) at two time points (elementary and secondary school) among 689 parent-adolescent dyads (parent age: 46 ± 5.4 years, 73 % mothers; child age: 13 ± 0.3 years, 52 % female). Forty-two percent were assessed pre-pandemic, and 58 % during the pandemic. Both cohorts self-reported parenting practices, recreational screen-time, and physical activity; non-pandemic children also wore accelerometers. Mixed-effect models with parenting-by-grade interaction terms assessed within-cohort changes over time. Results: Supportive parenting predicted lower self-reported recreational screen-time and higher moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) (non-pandemic: b = -25, 95 %CI:-38,-12 & b = 0.66, 95 %CI:0.38,0.93; pandemic: b = -19, 95 %CI:-30,-8 & b = 0.63, 95 %CI:0.32,0.93). In non-pandemic families, supportive parenting also predicted weekday light and MVPA (b = 12, 95 %CI:4,21 & b = 9, 95 %CI:4,14), though the latter significantly weakened post-transition (b = -11, 95 %CI:-19,-2). Conclusions: Our findings highlight the importance of positive parenting in supporting children's active lifestyles, particularly during key life transitions.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".