4.5 Article

Prevalence and correlates of screen time among Brazilian adolescents: findings from a country-wide survey

期刊

APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY NUTRITION AND METABOLISM
卷 43, 期 7, 页码 684-690

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING, NRC RESEARCH PRESS
DOI: 10.1139/apnm-2017-0630

关键词

epidemiology; prevalence; sedentary behavior; screen time; adolescents; youth

资金

  1. Funding Authority for Studies and Projects (FINEP) [01090421]
  2. Brazilian National Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq) [565037/2010-2, 405009/2012-7, 457050/2013-6]
  3. CNPq [304595/2012-8, 305116/2012-6]
  4. Norwegian Research Council [249932/F20]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the distribution, prevalence, and correlates of excessive screen time (>2 h/day) among Brazilian adolescents. The Study of Cardiovascular Risks in Adolescents (ERICA) is a national, school-based, cross-sectional multicenter study. Information about time spent in front of screens was assessed by questionnaire. Poisson regression models were used to examine the associations between following correlates (region, sex, age, skin color, income, Internet access, and number of TVs at home) and excessive screen time. A total of 66 706 Brazilian adolescents (aged 12-17 years) were included. The overall mean time in front of screens was 3.25 h/day (95% confidence interval (95%CI): 3.20-3.31) and the prevalence of excessive screen time was 57.3% (95%CI: 55.9-58.6). Moreover, excessive screen time also differs across Brazilian regions, being higher in Southeast and South, respectively. In adjusted models stratified by region, the socioeconomic status was associated with excessive screen time in North, Northeast, and Midwest. In all regions, having a computer with Internet access was associated with higher prevalence of excessive screen time. In conclusion, prevalence of excessive screen time in Brazilian adolescents is high. It presents regional variations and facility for Internet access.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据