| Literature DB >> 35444977 |
Shu Zhang1, Tianyi Xiao1, Jie He1,2.
Abstract
Introduction: Adolescence is a crucial stage for health behavior development, which is associated with health in adulthood. School closures caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have exposed adolescents to an increased risk of obesity due to a lack of physical activity. Although social network interventions provide an effective approach for promoting health-related behavior, current practices neglect gender differences in adolescent behavioral patterns and emotional preferences. The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of centrality-based methods integrated with of gender contexts in a social network intervention to improve adolescent's health behavior.Entities:
Keywords: agent-based model (ABM); centrality measurement; gender differences; obesity; peer influence; small-world networks
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35444977 PMCID: PMC9013940 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.861743
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Figure 1The building process of the Watts–Strogatz small-world model with gender contexts.
Overview of parameters used for the social network ABM.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Small-world property | Clustering coefficient | 0.43 |
| Average path length | 4.81 | |
| Link proportion | Male-male | 0.41 |
| Female-female | 0.38 | |
| Male-female | 0.21 | |
| Influence agent | Initial influence proportion | 0.15 |
| Spread chance | Male-male | 0.20 |
| Female-female | 0.25 | |
| Male-female | 0.10 | |
| Resistance chance | Male | 0.10 |
| Female | 0.20 |
Descriptive and correlational analyses of the study population.
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 13.35 | 13.35 | 13.36 | 0.878 | |
| Number ( | 234 | 113 (48.29%) | 121 (51.71%) | 0.274 | |
| Mean BMI (kg/m2) | 2018.11 | 21.42 | 20.62 | 22.17 | 0.012 |
| 2019.11 | 21.94 | 21.30 | 22.54 | 0.048 | |
| 2020.11 | 23.32 | 22.59 | 24.01 | 0.036 | |
| Overweight/obesity prevalence (%) | 2018.11 | 38.46 | 31.86 | 44.62 | 0.023 |
| 2019.11 | 38.89 | 31.86 | 45.45 | 0.005 | |
| 2020.11 | 44.02 | 40.71 | 47.11 | 0.047 | |
| Unhealthy weight in PF test failure (%) | 2018.11 | 66.67 | 32.60 | 67.40 | 0.001 |
| 2019.11 | 75.00 | 40.00 | 84.21 | 0.929 | |
| 2020.11 | 81.25 | 50.00 | 88.46 | 0.008 | |
| BMI and PF test failure Pearson Correlation | 2018.11 | −0.494 | – | – | <0.05 |
| 2019.11 | −0.540 | – | – | <0.05 | |
| 2020.11 | −0.589 | – | – | <0.05 |
Difference between boys and girls;
Significant at P-value < 0.05.
Descriptive statistics for the social network interventions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | – | 0.04 | 0.21 | 0.33 | 0.43 |
| Maximum | – | 0.15 | 0.25 | 1.00 | 0.70 |
| Minimum | – | 0.00 | 0.17 | 0.07 | 0.01 |
| Success rate (%) | 98.91 | 98.92 | 98.71 | 98.96 | 98.97 |
| Diffusion speed (% per tick) | 5.22 | 6.16 | 5.98 | 6.16 | 6.37 |
| Female (% per tick) | 2.85 | 3.85 | 3.57 | 3.54 | 3.76 |
| Male (% per tick) | 2.81 | 2.96 | 2.86 | 2.92 | 3.21 |
Figure 2Intervention outcomes of the random and four centrality-based conditions.
Figure 3Gender differences under four centrality-based interventions.