The Screen Effect: How Technology is Shaping Our Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Leisure screen time is a key sedentary behavior that may influence various aspects of physical and mental health. This study examines the associations between screen time, meeting physical activity guidelines, self-reported health, and mental health in the Quebec population, considering sex differences. This study uses data from the 2017-2018 Canadian Community Health Survey, a cross-sectional and nationally representative survey. Leisure screen time was categorized: ≤2h/day, >2h-<4h, 4h-<6h, and ≥6h/day. Associations with meeting physical activity guidelines (≥150 min/week of moderate-to-vigorous activity), self-reported health (excellent/very good/good vs. fair/poor), and perceived mental health were analyzed by sex. Higher screen time was associated with a lower likelihood of meeting physical activity guidelines, particularly among men: 76.7% of men with ≥6h/day of screen time did not meet the guidelines, compared to 30.9% of those with ≤2h/day. A similar trend was observed in women, albeit less pronounced. The proportion of men reporting their health status as excellent, very good or good decreased with increasing screen time: 8% of those with ≥6h/day reported such status, compared to 35% among those with ≤2h/day. Similar trends were observed in women. Perceived mental health declined with increasing screen time in both men and women. Among men, the proportion reporting positive mental health decreased from 35% for ≤2h/day to 8% for ≥6h/day. Similar trends were observed in women (36% for ≤2h/day vs. 7% for ≥6h/day), highlighting an inverse relationship between screen time and psychological well-being. Our findings highlight the association between high leisure screen time and poorer self-reported health, lower perceived mental well-being, and reduced adherence to physical activity guidelines in both men and women. These findings emphasize the importance of considering screen time reduction as a modifiable target in public health initiatives promoting overall health. Key messages • High leisure screen time is linked to poorer health and lower physical activity levels in both sexes. • Reducing screen time could be a target for improving well-being in public health strategies.
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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".