کد مقاله | کد نشریه | سال انتشار | مقاله انگلیسی | نسخه تمام متن |
---|---|---|---|---|
6047630 | 1191200 | 2013 | 8 صفحه PDF | دانلود رایگان |
- Correlates of preschoolers' screen compliance differ between boys and girls
- Maternal television viewing consistently associated with compliance
- All demographic groups of preschool children require support to reduce use
- Parents, particularly mothers, may need to be counseled to reduce their screen use
- Guidance to reduce preschoolers' screen use should include sex-specific strategies
ObjectiveTo investigate the individual, social and physical environment correlates of preschool children's compliance with Australian/Canadian and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) screen recommendations.MethodAn Ecological Model (EM) was used to identify constructs potentially associated with children's screen time. In 2008-2009, parents in Melbourne, Australia, reported their child's screen time and on a range of potential correlates. Children (n = 935; 54% boys, mean age 4.54 ± 0.70 years) were assessed as meeting or not meeting each of the screen recommendations. Logistic regression assessed bivariable and multivariable associations.ResultsIn total, 15 explanatory variables, across the three domains of the EM were associated with boys' and/or girls' compliance with either Australian/Canadian or AAP recommendations. Correlates varied by sex and recommendation. Maternal television viewing time was the only consistent correlate for both boys' and girls' compliance with both recommendations. No demographic groups were identified as being less likely to comply with screen recommendations.ConclusionPublic health programs should take account of the sex-specific nature of correlates of preschool children's screen time. Preschool children across all demographic groups need support to engage in less screen use. Parents may benefit from education and parenting skills to minimize potentially harmful effects of excessive screen time for their child.
Journal: Preventive Medicine - Volume 57, Issue 3, September 2013, Pages 212-219