| Title |
Screen-based sedentary behavior and associations with functional strength in 6–15 year-old children in the United States
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12889-016-2791-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lisa R. Edelson, Kevin C. Mathias, Victor L. Fulgoni, Leonidas G. Karagounis |
| Abstract |
Physical strength is associated with improved health outcomes in children. Heavier children tend to have lower functional strength and mobility. Physical activity can increase children's strength, but it is unknown how different types of electronic media use impact physical strength. Data from the NHANES National Youth Fitness Survey (NNYFS) from children ages 6-15 were analyzed in this study. Regression models were conducted to determine if screen-based sedentary behaviors (television viewing time, computer/video game time) were associated with strength measures (grip, leg extensions, modified pull-ups, plank) while controlling for potential confounders including child age, sex, BMI z-score, and days per week with 60+ minutes of physical activity. Grip strength and leg extensions divided by body weight were analyzed to provide measures of relative strength together with pull-ups and plank, which require lifting the body. The results from the regression models showed the hypothesized inverse association between TV time and all strength measures. Computer time was only significantly inversely associated with the ability to do one or more pull-ups. This study shows that television viewing, but not computer/videogames, is inversely associated with measures of child strength while controlling for child characteristics and physical activity. These findings suggest that "screen time" may not be a unified construct with respect to strength outcomes and that further exploration of the potential benefits of reducing television time on children's strength and related mobility is needed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 142 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 22 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 8% |
| Researcher | 9 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 34 | 24% |
| Unknown | 36 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 26 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 12% |
| Psychology | 7 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 17 | 12% |
| Unknown | 46 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 February 2016.
All research outputs
#13,761,985
of 22,844,985 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#9,927
of 14,884 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,686
of 397,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#164
of 261 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,844,985 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,884 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 397,006 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 261 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.