↓ Skip to main content

Associations of discretionary screen time with mortality, cardiovascular disease and cancer are attenuated by strength, fitness and physical activity: findings from the UK Biobank study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#43 of 2,513)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
40 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
86 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Associations of discretionary screen time with mortality, cardiovascular disease and cancer are attenuated by strength, fitness and physical activity: findings from the UK Biobank study
Published in
BMC Medicine, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12916-018-1063-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlos A. Celis-Morales, Donald M. Lyall, Lewis Steell, Stuart R. Gray, Stamatina Iliodromiti, Jana Anderson, Daniel F. Mackay, Paul Welsh, Thomas Yates, Jill P. Pell, Naveed Sattar, Jason M. R. Gill

Abstract

Discretionary screen time (time spent viewing a television or computer screen during leisure time) is an important contributor to total sedentary behaviour, which is associated with increased risk of mortality and cardiovascular disease (CVD). The aim of this study was to determine whether the associations of screen time with cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality were modified by levels of cardiorespiratory fitness, grip strength or physical activity. In total, 390,089 participants (54% women) from the UK Biobank were included in this study. All-cause mortality, CVD and cancer incidence and mortality were the main outcomes. Discretionary television (TV) viewing, personal computer (PC) screen time and overall screen time (TV + PC time) were the exposure variables. Grip strength, fitness and physical activity were treated as potential effect modifiers. Altogether, 7420 participants died, and there were 22,210 CVD events, over a median of 5.0 years follow-up (interquartile range 4.3 to 5.7; after exclusion of the first 2 years from baseline in the landmark analysis). All discretionary screen-time exposures were significantly associated with all health outcomes. The associations of overall discretionary screen time with all-cause mortality and incidence of CVD and cancer were strongest amongst participants in the lowest tertile for grip strength (all-cause mortality hazard ratio per 2-h increase in screen time (1.31 [95% confidence interval: 1.22-1.43], p < 0.0001; CVD 1.21 [1.13-1.30], p = 0.0001; cancer incidence 1.14 [1.10-1.19], p < 0.0001) and weakest amongst those in the highest grip-strength tertile (all-cause mortality 1.04 [0.95-1.14], p = 0.198; CVD 1.05 [0.99-1.11], p = 0.070; cancer 0.98 [0.93-1.05], p = 0.771). Similar trends were found for fitness (lowest fitness tertile: all-cause mortality 1.23 [1.13-1.34], p = 0.002 and CVD 1.10 [1.02-1.22], p = 0.010; highest fitness tertile: all-cause mortality 1.12 [0.96-1.28], p = 0.848 and CVD 1.01 [0.96-1.07], p = 0.570). Similar findings were found for physical activity for all-cause mortality and cancer incidence. The associations between discretionary screen time and adverse health outcomes were strongest in those with low grip strength, fitness and physical activity and markedly attenuated in those with the highest levels of grip strength, fitness and physical activity. Thus, if these associations are causal, the greatest benefits from health promotion interventions to reduce discretionary screen time may be seen in those with low levels of strength, fitness and physical activity.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 86 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Student > Master 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 6 7%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 20 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 27%
Sports and Recreations 12 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Psychology 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 26 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 397. 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 20 September 2020.
All research outputs
#36,541
of 16,099,171 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#43
of 2,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,398
of 282,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,099,171 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,513 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 37.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
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 282,639 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them