4.7 Review

Sedentary behavior and indicators of mental health in school-aged children and adolescents: A systematic review

Journal

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
Volume 76, Issue -, Pages 48-57

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.03.026

Keywords

Sedentary lifestyle; Mental health; Child; Adolescent; Systematic review

Funding

  1. German Cancer Aid [110012]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. The presented systematic review aims at giving a comprehensive overview of studies assessing the relationship between sedentary behavior and indicators of mental health in school-aged children and adolescents. Methods. Six online databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus) as well as personal libraries and reference lists of existing literature were searched for eligible studies. Results. Ninety-one studies met all inclusion criteria. There was strong evidence that high levels of screen time were associated with more hyperactivity/inattention problems and internalizing problems as well as with less psychological well-being and perceived quality of life. Concerning depressive symptoms, self-esteem, eating disorder symptoms, and anxiety symptoms, no clear conclusion could be drawn. But, taking quality assessment into account, self-esteem was negatively associated with sedentary behavior, i.e. high levels of time engaging in screen-based sedentary behavior were linked to lower scores in self-esteem. Conclusions. Overall, the association between sedentary behavior and mental health indicators was rather indeterminate. Future studies of high quality and with an objective measure of sedentary behavior will be necessary to further examine this association as well as to investigate longitudinal relationships and the direction of causality. Furthermore, more studies are needed to identify moderating and mediating variables. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available