Sociodemographic differences in 24-hour time-use behaviours in New Zealand children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The time that children spend in physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and sleep each day (i.e., 24-h time-use behaviours), is related to physical and mental health outcomes. Currently, there is no comprehensive evidence on New Zealand school-aged children’s 24-h time-use behaviours, adherence to the New Zealand 24-h Movement Guidelines, and how these vary among different sociodemographic groups. Methods This study utilises data from the 8-year wave of the Growing Up in New Zealand longitudinal study. Using two Axivity AX3 accelerometers, children’s 24-h time-use behaviours were described from two perspectives: activity intensity and activity type. Compositional data analysis techniques were used to explore the differences in 24-h time-use compositions across various sociodemographic groups. Results Children spent on average, 31.1%, 22.3%, 6.8%, and 39.8% of their time in sedentary, light physical activity, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, and sleep, respectively. However, the daily distribution of time in different activity types was 33.2% sitting, 10.8% standing, 7.3% walking, 0.4% running, and 48.2% lying. Both the activity intensity and activity type compositions varied across groups of child ethnicity, gender, and household income or deprivation. The proportion of children meeting each of the guidelines was 90% for physical activity, 62.5% for sleep, 16% for screen time, and 10.6% for the combined guidelines. Both gender and residence location (i.e., urban vs. rural) were associated with meeting the physical activity guideline, whereas child ethnicity, mother’s education and residence location were associated with meeting the screen time guideline. Child ethnicity and mother’s education were also significantly associated with the adherence to the combined 24-h Movement Guidelines. Conclusions This study provided comprehensive evidence on how New Zealand children engage in 24-h time-use behaviours, adherence to the New Zealand 24-h Movement Guidelines, and how these behaviours differ across key sociodemographic groups. These findings should be considered in designing future interventions for promoting healthy time-use patterns in New Zealand children.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".