4.1 Article

Screen-related Sedentary Behaviors: Children's and Parents' Attitudes, Motivations, and Practices

Journal

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION AND BEHAVIOR
Volume 42, Issue 1, Pages 17-25

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneb.2008.11.011

Keywords

sedentary behavior; school-aged children; attitudes; social influence; intentions

Funding

  1. Canadian Institute of Health Research
  2. District Catholic School Board

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To investigate school-aged children's and parents' attitudes, social influences, and intentions toward excessive screen-related sedentary behavior (S-RSB). Design: A cross-sectional study using a survey methodology. Setting: Elementary schools in London, Ontario, Canada. Participants: All grades 5 and 6 students, their parents, and their teachers in the participating schools were invited to voluntarily participate; 508 student-parent pairs completed the surveys. Main Outcome Measure: Children's screen-related behaviors. Analysis: Data were analyzed using the Independent Student t test to compare differences of continuous variables and the chi-square test to test for differences of categorical variables. Results: Children spent 3.3 +/- 0.15 (standard error) hours per day engaged in screen-related activities. Entertainment, spending time with family, and boredom were cited as the top 3 reasons for television viewing and video game playing. Compared to low-screen users (ie, < 2 hours/day), high-screen users (ie, ! 2 hours/day) had a less negative attitude toward excessive S-RSB and perceived loosened parental rules oil screen use. Parents of high-screen users had a less negative attitude toward children's S-RSB, had fewer rules about their children's screen use, and were more likely to be sedentary themselves. Conclusions and Implications: Intervention strategies aimed at reducing S-RSB should involve both parents and children and should focus oil fostering behavioral changes and promoting parental role modeling.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available