Tim S Olds1, Carol A Maher, Kate Ridley, Daniella M Kittel. 1. Health and Use of Time (HUT) Group, Sansom Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia, GPO Box 2471, Adelaide, 5001, South Australia, Australia. carol.maher@unisa.edu.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Much attention has been paid to adolescents' screen time, however very few studies have examined non-screen sedentary time (NSST). This study aimed to (1) describe the magnitude and composition of screen sedentary time (SST) and NSST in Australian adolescents, (2) describe the socio-demographic correlates of SST and NSST, and (3) determine whether screen time is an adequate surrogate for total sedentary behaviour in this population. METHODS: 2200 9-16 year old Australians provided detailed use of time data for four days. Non-screen sedentary time (NSST) included time spent participating in activities expected to elicit <3 METs whilst seated or lying down (other than sleeping), excluding screen-based activities (television, playing videogames or using computers). Total sedentary time was the sum of screen time and NSST. RESULTS: Adolescents spent a mean (SD) of 345 (105) minutes/day in NSST, which constituted 60% of total sedentary time. School activities contributed 42% of NSST, socialising 19%, self-care (mainly eating) 16%, and passive transport 15%. Screen time and NSST showed opposite patterns in relation to key socio-demographic characteristics, including sex, age, weight status, household income, parental education and day type. Because screen time was negatively correlated with NSST (r = -0.58), and exhibited a moderate correlation (r = 0.53) with total sedentary time, screen time was only a moderately effective surrogate for total sedentary time. CONCLUSIONS: To capture a complete picture of young people's sedentary time, studies should endeavour to measure both screen time and NSST.
BACKGROUND: Much attention has been paid to adolescents' screen time, however very few studies have examined non-screen sedentary time (NSST). This study aimed to (1) describe the magnitude and composition of screen sedentary time (SST) and NSST in Australian adolescents, (2) describe the socio-demographic correlates of SST and NSST, and (3) determine whether screen time is an adequate surrogate for total sedentary behaviour in this population. METHODS: 2200 9-16 year old Australians provided detailed use of time data for four days. Non-screen sedentary time (NSST) included time spent participating in activities expected to elicit <3 METs whilst seated or lying down (other than sleeping), excluding screen-based activities (television, playing videogames or using computers). Total sedentary time was the sum of screen time and NSST. RESULTS: Adolescents spent a mean (SD) of 345 (105) minutes/day in NSST, which constituted 60% of total sedentary time. School activities contributed 42% of NSST, socialising 19%, self-care (mainly eating) 16%, and passive transport 15%. Screen time and NSST showed opposite patterns in relation to key socio-demographic characteristics, including sex, age, weight status, household income, parental education and day type. Because screen time was negatively correlated with NSST (r = -0.58), and exhibited a moderate correlation (r = 0.53) with total sedentary time, screen time was only a moderately effective surrogate for total sedentary time. CONCLUSIONS: To capture a complete picture of young people's sedentary time, studies should endeavour to measure both screen time and NSST.
Authors: Charles E Matthews; Kong Y Chen; Patty S Freedson; Maciej S Buchowski; Bettina M Beech; Russell R Pate; Richard P Troiano Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2008-02-25 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Aristides M Machado-Rodrigues; Neiva Leite; Manuel J Coelho-e-Silva; Fernando Enes; Rômulo Fernandes; Luís P G Mascarenhas; Margaret C S Boguszewski; Robert M Malina Journal: Int J Public Health Date: 2014-12-10 Impact factor: 3.380
Authors: L T Ptomey; B C Helsel; D A White; J Lee; J R Sherman; R A Washburn; A M Gorczyca; J E Donnelly Journal: J Intellect Disabil Res Date: 2022-02-21
Authors: Louise S Foley; Ralph Maddison; Yannan Jiang; Timothy Olds; Kate Ridley Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2011-12-01 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Deirdre M Harrington; Ekaterini Ioannidou; Melanie J Davies; Charlotte L Edwardson; Trish Gorely; Alex V Rowlands; Lauren B Sherar; Amanda E Staiano Journal: Acta Paediatr Date: 2021-03-03 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Joana Marcela Sales de Lucena; Luanna Alexandra Cheng; Thaísa Leite Mafaldo Cavalcante; Vanessa Araújo da Silva; José Cazuza de Farias Júnior Journal: Rev Paul Pediatr Date: 2015-08-01
Authors: Andrew J Atkin; Kirsten Corder; Ulf Ekelund; Katrien Wijndaele; Simon J Griffin; Esther M F van Sluijs Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-06-28 Impact factor: 3.240