4.5 Article

Screen time is more strongly associated than physical activity with overweight and obesity in 9-to 16-year-old Australians

Journal

ACTA PAEDIATRICA
Volume 101, Issue 11, Pages 1170-1174

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2012.02804.x

Keywords

Adolescent; Body mass index; Child; Physical activity; Sedentary lifestyle

Categories

Funding

  1. Australian Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing
  2. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
  3. Australian Food and Grocery Council, through the National Children's Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Both reduced moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and increased screen time have been implicated in the aetiology of childhood overweight/obesity. This study aimed to determine which behaviour had the stronger association with overweight/obesity. Method: 2200 randomly selected 9- to 16-year-old Australians provided four 24-h use-of-time recalls. Participants were classified into weight status categories and as high or low physical active, and high or low screen time according to Australian guidelines (=60 min MVPA; =120 min recreational screen time daily). Multivariate logistic regression was used to calculate the odds ratios (OR) for overweight/obesity for each screen time and MVPA category. Results: Increased likelihood of overweight or obese was often associated with high screen time (ORs, 2.132.55 for boys and 1.471.72 for girls), but only sometimes and less strongly associated with low MVPA (ORs, 0.492.55 for boys and 1.061.47 for girls). Analyses conducted for combined screen time and MVPA categories showed screen time to be a stronger indicator of weight status than physical activity, especially in boys. Conclusion: Overweight and obesity were more strongly associated with screen time than physical activity. Screen time may be an important target for interventions aimed at reducing childhood overweight and obesity.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available