BACKGROUND: To influence adolescent health, a greater understanding of time use and covariates such as gender is required. PURPOSE: To explore gender-specific time use patterns in Australian adolescents using high-resolution time use data. METHOD: This study analyzed 24-hour recall time use data collected as part of the 2007 Australian National Children's Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey (n = 2,200). Univariate analyses to determine gender differences in time use were conducted. RESULTS: Boys spent more (p < .0001) time participating in screen-based (17.7 % vs. 14.2% daily time) and physical activities (10.7% vs. 9.2%). Girls spent more (p < .0001) time being social (4.7% vs. 3.4% daily time), studying (2.0% vs. 1.7%), and doing household chores (4.7% vs. 3.4%). CONCLUSIONS: There are gender-specific differences in time use behavior among Australian adolescents. The results reinforce existing time use gender-based stereotypes. Implications. The gender-specific time use behaviors offer intervention design possibilities.
BACKGROUND: To influence adolescent health, a greater understanding of time use and covariates such as gender is required. PURPOSE: To explore gender-specific time use patterns in Australian adolescents using high-resolution time use data. METHOD: This study analyzed 24-hour recall time use data collected as part of the 2007 Australian National Children's Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey (n = 2,200). Univariate analyses to determine gender differences in time use were conducted. RESULTS:Boys spent more (p < .0001) time participating in screen-based (17.7 % vs. 14.2% daily time) and physical activities (10.7% vs. 9.2%). Girls spent more (p < .0001) time being social (4.7% vs. 3.4% daily time), studying (2.0% vs. 1.7%), and doing household chores (4.7% vs. 3.4%). CONCLUSIONS: There are gender-specific differences in time use behavior among Australian adolescents. The results reinforce existing time use gender-based stereotypes. Implications. The gender-specific time use behaviors offer intervention design possibilities.
Authors: Eithne Hunt; Elizabeth A McKay; Darren L Dahly; Anthony P Fitzgerald; Ivan J Perry Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-11-15 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Megan B Ratcliff; Meg H Zeller; Thomas H Inge; Kathleen B Hrovat; Avani C Modi Journal: Surg Obes Relat Dis Date: 2014-02-12 Impact factor: 4.734
Authors: Robert O Deaner; David C Geary; David A Puts; Sandra A Ham; Judy Kruger; Elizabeth Fles; Bo Winegard; Terry Grandis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-11-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Matthew Cole Ainsworth; Dori Pekmezi; Heather Bowles; Diane Ehlers; Edward McAuley; Kerry S Courneya; Laura Q Rogers Journal: JMIR Cancer Date: 2018-05-14