Is non-adherence to Canadian 24-h movement guidelines associated with emotional and behavioral difficulties in Brazilian adolescents?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study examined the individual and combined association between meeting the 24-h movement guidelines with emotional and behavioral difficulties in Brazilian adolescents. Methods: The study included 815 adolescents (52 % female), aged 11-15 years (mean age: 13.43 years), enrolled in public schools from Jacarezinho, Paraná, Brazil. Sleep duration (SLP) was assessed using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index questionnaire. Screen time (ST) was assessed by self-reported daily use of electronic devices during the leisure time. Physical activity (PA) was measured by accelerometer. Mental health difficulties were assessed using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Statistical analyses were performed using generalized linear models, adjusted for age, gender, mother's education level, medication use, and BMI. Results: Findings showed that non-adherence to the ST guideline was associated with higher symptoms of hyperactivity/inattention (β: 1.22; 95 % CI: 1.05; 1.41; n = 815), and non-adherence to the SLP guideline was associated with higher total difficulties (β: 1.08; 95 % CI: 1.00; 1.16; n = 815). Combined analyses indicated significant associations between non-adherence to the PA + ST guidelines with higher emotional symptoms (β: 1.73; 95 % CI: 1.06; 2.83; n = 349), while non-adherence to the ST + SLP was associated with hyperactivity/inattention symptoms (β: 1.32; 95 % CI: 1.07; 1.62; n = 815). Conclusion: Non-adherence to the 24-h movement guidelines was associated with higher symptoms of emotional and behavioral difficulties. Understanding adolescents' lifestyles is crucial for developing efficient policies that enhance mental health among youth.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".