4.6 Article

Urban and rural differences in sedentary behavior among American and Canadian youth

Journal

HEALTH & PLACE
Volume 17, Issue 4, Pages 920-928

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2011.04.007

Keywords

Urban-rural health; Sedentary behavior; Youth; Mediation

Funding

  1. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [2004MOP 84478, 2004MOP-CHI-128223-C]
  3. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
  4. Public Health Agency of Canada [HT089-05205/001/SS]
  5. CIHR-Frederick Banting and Charles Best Doctoral Award
  6. Canada Research Chair
  7. Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We examined relationships between urban-rural status and three screen time behaviors (television, computer, video games), and the potential mediating effect of parent and peer support on these relationships. Findings are based on American (n=8563) and Canadian (n=8990) youth in grades 6-10 from the 2005/06 Health Behavior in School-Aged Children Survey. Weekly hours of individual screen time behaviors were calculated. Urban-rural status was defined using the Beale coding system. Parent and peer support variables were derived from principal component analysis. In comparison to the referent group (non-metro adjacent), American youth in the most rural areas were more likely to be high television users and less likely to be high computer users. Conversely, Canadian youth in medium and large metropolitan areas were less likely to be high television users and more likely to be high computer users. Parent and peer support did not strongly mediate the relationships between urban-rural status and screen time. These findings suggest that interventions aiming to reduce screen time may be most effective if they consider residential location and the specific screen time behavior. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available