Understanding the determinants of sedentary time during childhood contributes to the development of effective intervention programmes.
To examine family and home-environmental determinants of 1-year change in objectively measured sedentary time after-school and at the weekend.
Participants wore accelerometers at baseline and 1 year later. Longitudinal data for after-school and weekend analyses were available for 854 (41.5%male, mean±SD age 10.2±0.3years) and 718 (41.8%male, age 10.2±0.3years) participants. Information on 26 candidate determinants, including socioeconomic status (SES), availability of electronic media and parental rules for sedentary behaviours was self-reported by children or their parents at baseline. Change in the proportion of registered time spent sedentary was used as the outcome variable in multi-level linear regression models, adjusted for age, sex, body mass index and baseline sedentary time. Simple and multiple models were run and interactions with sex explored.
Children from higher socioeconomic status families exhibited greater increases in after-school (beta; 95% CI for change in % time spent sedentary 1.02; 0.37, 1.66) and weekend (1.42; 0.65, 2.18) sedentary time. Smaller increases in after-school sedentary time were observed in children with more siblings (−1.00; −1.69, −0.30), greater availability of electronic media (−0.81; −1.29, −0.33) and, for boys, more frequent family visits to the park (−1.89; −3.28, −0.51) and family participation in sport (−1.28; −2.54, −0.02). Greater maternal weekend screen-time (0.45; 0.08, 0.83) and, in girls, greater parental restriction on playing outside (0.91; 0.08, 1.74) were associated with larger increases in weekend sedentary time. The analytical sample was younger, more likely to be female, had lower BMI and was of higher SES than the original baseline sample.
Citation: Atkin AJ, Corder K, Ekelund U, Wijndaele K, Griffin SJ, van Sluijs EMF (2013) Determinants of Change in Children’s Sedentary Time. PLoS ONE 8(6): e67627. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067627
Editor: Sanja Stanojevic, Hospital for Sick Children, Canada
Received: February 12, 2013; Accepted: May 21, 2013; Published: June 28, 2013
Copyright: © 2013 Atkin et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: The work of Andrew J. Atkin, Kirsten Corder, Simon J. Griffin and Esther M. F. van Sluijs was supported, wholly or in part, by the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), a UK Clinical Research Collaboration Public Health Research Centre of Excellence (RES-590-28-0002). Funding from the British Heart Foundation, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health Research, and the Wellcome Trust, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged. The work of Katrien Wijndaele is supported by a British Heart Foundation Intermediate Basic Science Research Fellowship (FS/12/58/29709). The SPEEDY study was funded by the Medical Research Council (Unit Programme number MC_U106179474; MC_U106179473; MC_UP_1001/2) and the National Prevention Research Initiative, consisting of the following funding partners: British Heart Foundation; Cancer Research United Kingdom; Department of Health; Diabetes United Kingdom; Economic and Social Research Council; Medical Research Council; Health and Social Care Research and Development Office for Northern Ireland; Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health Directorates; Welsh Assembly Government; and World Cancer Research Fund. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
In the contemporary epidemiological literature, sedentary behaviours are conceptualised as being behaviourally distinct from the absence of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA).– As such, this group of behaviours, which includes television (TV) viewing and travelling by motorised transport, may present a health risk that is independent of MVPA. During childhood, these highly prevalent behaviours, which appear to increase with age –, may be associated with adiposity, low fitness, some cardiovascular disease risk factors and poorer mental health, – though the evidence is not wholly consistent.  Whilst further longitudinal and experimental research is required to clarify the role of sedentary behaviours as an independent health risk factor, there remain strong grounds for examining sedentary behaviour in a public health context. The time available each day for children to engage in sedentary and physically active behaviours is fixed and finite. Previous research has demonstrated that changes in children’s screen or social sedentary behaviour may impact upon time allocated to sleep and physical activity. ,  Therefore, knowledge of the determinants of sedentary behaviour may contribute towards the promotion of physical activity, by enabling the development of intervention strategies to shift children’s behaviour from sedentary to more active pursuits. Public health guidelines in the UK recommend that young people should minimise the amount of time spent being sedentary for prolonged periods. .
To inform the development of intervention programmes, it is necessary to identify population groups at risk of high levels of sedentary behaviour and modifiable factors that can be targeted to reduce participation.  Informed by an ecological model of health behaviour, it may be hypothesised that factors operating at individual, social, and environmental levels may influence children’s sedentary behaviour patterns, though few studies attempt to examine the relative influence of factors from multiple levels simultaneously.  To date, family and home-environmental characteristics, such as parental sedentary behaviours, availability of electronic media and parental rules, consistently have been associated with children’s sedentary behaviour patterns.– However, much of this evidence is drawn from cross-sectional studies using self-report measures of TV viewing or other screen-based behaviours –; such measures fail to capture the diversity and entirety of children’s sedentary behaviour.– In order to limit or reduce children’s overall sedentary time, as recommended in public health guidelines,  studies examining the determinants of total sedentary time are required. Prospective studies examining the determinants of children’s objectively measured sedentary time are lacking. , ,  Therefore, the aim of the current study was to examine the association of social, behavioural and environmental characteristics of the home and family with changes in children’s objectively-measured non-school sedentary time over 1 year. To ascertain whether tailored intervention approaches may be necessary for boys and girls, we tested for effect modification by sex in our statistical models. We acknowledge that numerous moderators may exist (e.g. weight status, ethnicity) but felt it was not feasible to examine multiple moderators within the scope of the current analysis. We focus upon sex because previous research indicates that the correlates of sedentary and physically active behaviours may differ for boys and girls –,  but few studies test for such interactions statistically.
Design and Ethics Statement
The Sport, Physical Activity, and Eating Behaviour: Environmental Determinants in Young People (SPEEDY) study is a population based cohort study investigating factors associated with physical activity, sedentary behaviour and diet in children from the county of Norfolk, UK.  Ethical approval was obtained from the University of East Anglia research ethics committee.
Data Collection Procedures
Full details of participant recruitment and procedures for baseline data collection have been reported previously.  Of the 157 schools approached to participate in SPEEDY, 92 (response rate 58.6%) were visited for measurement. At participating schools, all children in school year 5 (N = 3619) and their parents were sent an invitation pack. In total, 2064 children provided parental consent and were measured at baseline (57.0% response rate). Baseline data collection took place during the school term, between April-July 2007. Trained research assistants visited schools to take physical measurements, administer child questionnaires, fit accelerometers, and distribute a home pack (containing an accelerometer diary, instruction sheet, questionnaire, and food diary). Participants were requested to return the home pack one week later.
Follow-up data collection took place 1 year later (April–July 2008). Study information sheets and consent forms were mailed to all 2064 initial participants. Those who consented were mailed an accelerometer and a detailed instruction sheet. Participants were asked to wear the accelerometer for one week and to return it by mail, using an addressed, pre-paid envelope. Individual participants were measured at approximately the same time of year as at baseline.
Sedentary Behaviour Measurement
Sedentary time was measured objectively using an Actigraph (GT1M; Pensacola, FL) accelerometer , , set to record at 5-second epochs. Children were instructed to wear the monitor during waking hours for 7 days and to remove it while bathing, showering and swimming. Accelerometer data were analysed using a batch processing program (MAHUffe; http://legacy.mrc-epid.cam.ac.uk/Research/Programmes/Programme_5/InDepth/Programme%205_Disclaimer.html). A count threshold of <100 counts per minute (cpm) was used to define sedentary time. ,  Periods of ≥10 minutes of consecutive zero counts ,  and days with <500 minutes of recording between 6 am–11 pm were excluded. ,  Two sedentary time outcome variables were derived and analysed separately; (1) after-school (3–11 pm, Monday-Friday) and (2) at the weekend (6 am–11 pm, Saturday/Sunday). To account for differences in accelerometer wear time between baseline and follow-up, outcome variables were constructed as change in the proportion of time spent sedentary, calculated as follows: [(follow-up sedentary time/follow-up wear time)×100]–[(baseline sedentary time/baseline wear time)×100]. A minimum of 2 days of weekday data and 1 day of weekend data was required for inclusion in the after-school and weekend analyses respectively. Change in sedentary time (min/day) between baseline and follow-up was estimated by multiplying the proportion of time spent sedentary by the mean wear time for the appropriate time period.
Family and Home-environmental Factors
Twenty six determinants were included in the analysis, grouped under the following headings: socio-demographic, parent behaviours, family rules and activities, home environment (Table 1). Data on putative determinants were self-reported by children or their parents at baseline using previously tested items where possible. All determinants were assessed using a single item, except for sedentary behaviour restriction (3 items; Cronbach’s α 0.8) and indoor play rules (2 items; Cronbach’s α 0.6). Due to lack of heterogeniety (>90% of responses in one category or direction), ethnicity (96.8% white), whether or not there was a garden at home (98.9% yes), and whether or not there was a TV (99.8% yes) or computer (95.7% yes) at home were not included in the analyses.
Analyses were conducted using Stata (version 11.0) in 2012. We compared baseline characteristics among those included and lost to follow-up using Student’s t tests and Χ2 tests. Accounting for school-level clustering, multi-level (random intercept) linear regression was used to test for differences in sedentary time between baseline and follow-up. Separately for after-school and weekend outcome variables, multi-level (random intercept) linear regression was used to examine associations of putative determinants assessed at baseline with change in the proportion of time spent sedentary from baseline to follow-up. The intra-class correlations (ICC) for change in after-school and weekend sedentary time were 0.01 and 0.07 respectively. Determinants were coded as binary or ordered categorical variables. Ordered categorical variables were linearly associated with outcome measures and therefore treated as continuous in statistical models. Initially, simple associations between determinants and sedentary time outcomes were examined, with adjustment for baseline level of the outcome variable only.  Subsequently, interaction terms were added to regression models to explore effect modification by sex. Determinants, and associated interaction terms, with P<0.1 in simple models were entered into a single multivariable model. Multivariable models were adjusted for age, sex, BMI, and baseline level of the outcome variable. In the multivariable model, variables with P>0.05 were sequentially removed, one at a time starting with the highest P-value, to derive the ‘final model’.
Information on father characteristics was not available for those households where a (step-) father was not present in the home (after-school analysis N = 127, weekend analysis N = 104). To avoid potential selection bias, father characteristics that were significantly associated in simple models were only entered into ‘final models’ to determine whether they remained significant after adjustment for potential confounders and other significant determinants.
Of the 2064 participants from baseline measurement that were invited to take part in follow-up, 1019 (49.4% of the baseline sample) provided parental consent. Of those participants, 954 (46.2% of baseline sample; 93.6% of follow-up sample) returned an activity monitor containing data. Valid accelerometer data on changes in after-school and weekend sedentary time was obtained for 854 (41.4% of baseline sample; 83.8% of follow-up sample) and 718 (34.8% of baseline sample; 70.5% of follow-up sample) participants, respectively. Participants included in the analyses were younger (after-school P = 0.02; weekend P = 0.04), more likely to be female (after-school P = 0.009; weekend P = 0.04), had lower BMI (after-school P = 0.003; weekend P = 0.01), and were more likely to be of higher SES (after-school and weekend P<0.001) than those from the baseline sample (n = 2064) who did not provide outcome data at follow-up. Table 2 presents baseline characteristics for 854 participants providing valid data on after-school sedentary time at baseline and follow-up. Over 1 year, sedentary time increased both after-school and at the weekend (Table 3).
Determinants of Change in After-school Sedentary Time
Simple associations between determinants and change in the proportion of time spent sedentary after-school and at the weekend are presented in Table 4. Eleven variables were significantly associated with change in after-school sedentary time and were carried forward to the multivariable model. Six determinants were independently associated with change in after-school sedentary time in the final model (Table 5). Children from higher SES families recorded greater increases in sedentary time compared to those of low SES. Children with a greater number of siblings and those with more electronic media in the bedroom exhibited smaller increases in time spent sedentary. For boys only, more frequent episodes of playing sport or visiting the park as a family were associated with smaller increases in sedentary time. A significant interaction with sex was observed for frequency of watching television as a family; in stratified analysis, however, associations in both boys and girls were non-significant.
Determinants of Change in Weekend Sedentary Time
In simple models, 6 variables were associated with change in weekend sedentary time and were included in the multivariable model. Three variables were retained in the final model. Children from higher SES families recorded greater increases in sedentary time compared to those of low SES. Children whose mothers spent more time TV viewing/using a computer at the weekend showed greater increases in sedentary time. More frequent restriction on playing outside was associated with greater increases in girls’ sedentary time.
Father-level Determinants of Change in Sedentary Time
Among participants with a (step-) father living at home, father’s TV viewing and computer use on weekdays (beta; 95%CI; P: 0.34; 0.02, 0.66; P = 0.04) and at the weekend (0.26; −0.03, 0.56; P = 0.08) were positively associated with change in sedentary time after-school. Interactions with sex were observed for father’s physical activity (Boys; 0.69; −0.08, 1.46; Girls −0.47; −1.10, 0.16; P for interaction = 0.02) and weekend TV viewing and computer use (Boys; −0.07; −0.52, 0.38; Girls 0.50; 0.12, 0.89; P for interaction = 0.06). When these variables were added to the final model derived in the full sample, one significant association remained; father’s physical activity was positively associated with change in boys after-school sedentary time (1.34; 0.53, 2.15; P = 0.001).
In simple models, father’s weekend TV viewing and computer use (beta; 95%CI; P: 0.52; 0.19, 0.86; P = 0.002) was positively associated and father’s physical activity (−0.55; 0. −1.12, 0.02; P = 0.06) negatively associated with change in sedentary time at the weekend. No significant interactions with sex were observed. When added to the final model derived in the full sample, the positive association between father’s TV viewing and computer use at the weekend remained significant (0.39; 0.01, 0.78; P = 0.04).
Over 1 year, small increases in children’s sedentary time after-school and at the weekend were observed (Table 3). Children from higher SES families exhibited greater increases in sedentary time compared to those of lower SES (Table 5). Familial-level factors, such as parent’s weekend TV viewing and computer use, whole-family participation in sport or recreation, and rules regarding playing outside, might be targeted to prevent or reduce the age-related increase in sedentary time. Identified determinants were often sex- or time-specific, suggesting that tailored intervention strategies, focusing upon particular periods of the week or gender groups, may be necessary (Table 5).
Comparison with Other Evidence
Existing studies of the determinants of change in children’s objectively measured sedentary time have focussed predominantly upon anthropometric or socio-demographic factors. , ,  Familial-level characteristics, including playing sport as a family and having restrictions on outside play, have been linked to screen-based sedentary behaviours and physical activity in children ,  but, to our knowledge, this is the first evidence that such characteristics may be associated with changes in children’s overall (non-school) sedentary time. Findings support the application of family-based strategies to modify sedentary behaviours in children, though verification in future studies is required.
In this study, children from higher SES families exhibited greater increases in sedentary time than those of lower SES. This represents a broadening of socio-economic differences, as SES was positively associated with sedentary time at baseline (data not shown). Mitchell et al  also reported that higher maternal education was associated with greater increases in British children’s sedentary time from 12–16 years of age. However, no association between maternal education and 3-year change in sedentary time was observed in Australian children (age 10–12 years at baseline)  and change in children’s screen-based sedentary behaviour may be inversely associated with parental education. ,  Currently, the socioeconomic patterning of change in sedentary behaviour during childhood remains unclear; however, it appears that the association may vary dependent upon how these constructs are defined and measured. That said, in sensitivity analyses, the direction of the association between SES and change in sedentary time remained unchanged in models using parents educational attainment and each of our component markers of SES individually (data not shown). Future work exploring how socioeconomic factors influence engagement in specific activities may help to identify behavioural patterns that underlie the associations observed in this study.
Mother’s and (where applicable) father’s weekend TV viewing and computer use was positively associated with change in children’s weekend sedentary time. In cross-sectional studies, children’s screen-based sedentary behaviour is positively associated with that of their parents,– but evidence from prospective studies is inconclusive. Davison et al  found that mother’s TV viewing at baseline was positively associated with their daughter’s viewing habits 2 years later, but there was no association between changes in mothers and daughters viewing habits over the same period. In the same study, father and daughter viewing patterns were positively associated in cross-sectional but not longitudinal analyses. In this study, and others on this subject, parental sedentary behaviours were assessed using self-report methods. Error in the measurement of this exposure may have contributed towards the null findings reported in previous research and led to underestimation of the association in the current analysis. Clarification of the role that caregiver modelling plays in shaping the sedentary behaviour of children requires that consideration is given to all caregivers in the household and acknowledgement that influences may vary between different family structures. It is necessary to investigate how parental behaviour influences overall sedentary time and whether this association is different to that seen for specific sedentary behaviours. Studies that jointly assess specific sedentary behaviours and total sedentary time are required.
Unexpectedly, we found that children with more electronic media in their bedroom at baseline exhibited smaller increases in sedentary time. The proportion of participants with 0, 1, 2, or 3 items of electronic media in their bedroom was 25.0, 27.0, 35.1 and 12.9% respectively. Cross-sectional research typically has shown that having electronic media in the bedroom is associated with greater screen-based sedentary behaviour. ,  However, previous research has failed to consistently identify a positive association between bedroom media and overall sedentary time. , ; this was also the case in cross-sectional analysis of data conducted as part of the current study (data not shown). A possible explanation for this counter-intuitive finding is that our analysis was based upon baseline exposures only, but the availability of electronic devices in the bedroom may have changed between baseline and follow-up. Thus, relative to children with more electronic media in their bedroom at baseline, children who acquired new electronic devices between baseline and follow-up may have experienced greater increases in sedentary time. As an intervention strategy, the impact of removing electronic media from children’s bedrooms has been little studied.  However, this strategy may create conflict between parents and children ; alternative approaches, perhaps focusing on parenting rules or limit setting, may be preferable. Research exploring how the availability of electronic media in the bedroom changes during childhood and how this impacts upon sedentary habits will provide valuable information for intervention design.
There is a need to better understand the determinants of sedentary time and to develop and evaluate interventions to reduce or minimise the observed increase with age. Modifiable determinants identified in this study were often sex- or time-specific. For example, boys from families that more frequently visited the park exhibited smaller increases in sedentary time after-school; girls with more restrictions on playing outside showed greater increases in weekend sedentary time. These context- and sex-specific associations should be acknowledged in future research. The influence of family- and home-environmental factors on children’s sedentary behaviour is a consistent feature of the correlates literature and strongly supports the application of family-level strategies within intervention programmes.
To date, interventions aimed at reducing sedentary behaviour in children have produced small, but significant, changes; , ,  however, these studies typically have focussed on a limited range of behaviours and it is generally not clear how time was reallocated if a reduction in the targeted behaviour was achieved. Our findings highlight a number of modifiable determinants that may be targeted to bring about changes in children’s overall (non-school) sedentary time, potentially providing greater net benefit than those focussed upon selected behaviours. The associations observed in this study were typically small in magnitude. For example, increases in after-school sedentary time were approximately 5–10 minutes greater in children from higher SES families compared to those from lower SES groups. However, when accumulated across the entire week and considered alongside other determinants identified in this study, the impact upon children’s sedentary time may be substantial.
Strengths and Limitations
A key strength of this study is the use of accelerometry to assess sedentary time in a large population based cohort of children. To ensure specificity between exposure and outcome measures, analyses were restricted to periods of the day and week when family and home-environmental factors most plausibly will influence sedentary behaviour patterns. Reflective of the exploratory nature of the study, a wide variety of exposures were examined, increasing the likelihood of identifying potential determinants and enabling better control for confounding. However, a large number of statistical tests were conducted; the possibility that some of the associations are chance findings cannot be ruled out. Associations highlighted in this study require further investigation and confirmation. Total (non-school) sedentary time is comprised of numerous sedentary behaviours, which may themselves have different determinants; this may have resulted in masking of some associations. Data were collected in 2007–2008 and it is possible that behaviour patterns may have changed since this time. However, it is unlikely that the familial associations underpinning behaviour have changed substantively during this period. There was evidence of selective drop-out, by age, sex, BMI and SES between baseline and follow-up, potentially limiting the generalisability of findings. Reduced heterogeneity in our SES exposure variable, as a result of differential drop-out, may have resulted in an underestimation of the association with change in sedentary time. In addition, the demographic and socioeconomic make-up of the SPEEDY sample may not be representative of the broader UK population. Lastly, no consensus exists for the processing of accelerometer data, for example in the choice of count threshold applied. The correlation between sedentary time estimated using 100 versus 200 cpm cut-points was 0.99, suggesting that the results of the associations examined are unlikely to be affected by the threshold applied. We adopted a conservative non-wear criterion of 10 minutes of consecutive zero counts, in order to minimise potential misclassification of non-wear time as sedentary time. We acknowledge the potential for underestimation of sedentary time as a result of this approach, though this effect is likely to be relatively minor. .
In children aged 10 years, significant increases in objectively measured sedentary time after-school and at the weekend were observed over 1 year; greater increases were noted amongst children from higher SES families. A number of potentially modifiable determinants of change in sedentary time were identified, highlighting features of the family and home-environment that could be targeted within intervention programmes. Further studies that examine the association between the presence of electronic media in the bedroom and change in children’s sedentary time are required. Reducing parents’ weekend screen-time, increasing family participation in sports or recreation (for boys) and promoting freedom to play outside (for girls) may be beneficial in efforts to prevent or reduce the age-related increase in children’s sedentary time.
The SPEEDY study is a collaboration between the MRC Epidemiology Unit and the School of Environmental Sciences and the School of Medicine, Health Policy and Practice at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. The contribution of our collaborators at the University of East Anglia in obtaining funding and ethical approval, data collection and data processing is gratefully acknowledged. We thank the schools, children, and parents for their participation, everyone who helped with the data collection and Norfolk Children’s Services for invaluable input and support. In addition, we thank Kate Westgate and Stefanie Mayle from the physical activity technical team at the MRC Epidemiology Unit for their assistance in processing the accelerometer data.
Conceived and designed the experiments: AJA KC UE KW SJG EMFvS. Performed the experiments: AJA KC UE KW SJG EMFvS. Analyzed the data: AJA KC EMFvS. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: AJA KC EMFvS. Wrote the paper: AJA KC UE KW SJG EMFvS.
- 1. Katzmarzyk PT (2010) Physical activity, sedentary behavior, and health: Paradigm paralysis or paradigm shift? Diabetes 59: 2717–25.
- 2. Marshall SJ, Ramirez E (2011) Reducing sedentary behavior: A new paradigm in physical activity promotion. Am J Lifestyle Med 5(6): 518–30.
- 3. Pate RR, O'Neill JR, Lobelo F (2008) The evolving definition of “sedentary”. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 36: 173–8.
- 4. Sedentary Behaviour Research Network (2012) Letter to the Editor: Standardized use of the terms “sedentary” and “sedentary behaviours”. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 37: 540–2.
- 5. Janz KF, Burns TL, Levy SM (2005) Tracking of activity and sedentary behaviors in childhood: the Iowa Bone Development Study. Am J Prev Med 29: 171–8.
- 6. Matthews CE, Chen KY, Freedson PS, Buchowski MS, Beech BM, et al. (2008) Amount of time spent in sedentary behaviors in the United States, 2003–2004. Am J Epidemiol 167: 875–81.
- 7. Mitchell JA, Pate RR, Dowda M, Mattocks C, Riddoch C, et al. (2012) A prospective study of sedentary behavior in a large cohort of youth. Med Sci Sports Exerc doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182446c65.
- 8. Ruiz JR, Ortega FB, Martinez-Gomez D, Labayen I, Moreno LA, et al. (2011) Objectively measured physical activity and sedentary time in European adolescents: The HELENA study. Am J Epidemiol 174: 173–84.
- 9. Biddle SJ, Asare M (2011) Physical activity and mental health in children and adolescents: A review of reviews. Brit J Sports Med 45: 886–95.
- 10. Chinapaw MJ, Proper KI, Brug J, van Mechelen W, Singh AS (2011) Relationship between young peoples' sedentary behaviour and biomedical health indicators: A systematic review of prospective studies. Obes Rev 12: e621–e32.
- 11. Salmon J, Tremblay MS, Marshall SJ, Hume C (2011) Health risks, correlates, and interventions to reduce sedentary behavior in young people. Am J Prev Med 41: 197–206.
- 12. Tremblay MS, Leblanc AG, Kho ME, Saunders TJ, Larouche R, et al. (2011) Systematic review of sedentary behaviour and health indicators in school-aged children and youth. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 8: 98.
- 13. Ekelund U, Luan J, Sherar LB, Esliger DW, Griew P, et al. (2012) Moderate to vigorous physical activity and sedentary time and cardiometabolic risk factors in children and adolescents. JAMA 307: 704–12.
- 14. Epstein LH, Roemmich JN (2001) Reducing sedentary behavior: Role in modifying physical activity. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 29: 103–8.
- 15. Olds T, Ferrar KE, Gomersall SR, Maher C, Walters JL (2012) The elasticity of time: associations between physical activity and use of time in adolescents. Health Educ Behav 39: 732–6.
- 16. Start Active Stay Active. A report on physical activity for health from the four home countries' Chief Medical Officers. The Department of Health 2011.
- 17. Sallis JF, Owen N (1999) Physical activity and behavioural medicine: Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- 18. Sallis J, Owen N (2002) Ecological models of health behavior. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Lewis FM, editors. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research and Practice. 462–85. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- 19. Cillero IH, Jago R (2010) Systematic review of correlates of screen-viewing among young children. Prev Med 51: 3–10.
- 20. Gorely T, Marshall SJ, Biddle SJ (2004) Couch kids: Correlates of television viewing among youth. Int J Behav Med 11: 152–63.
- 21. Pate RR, Mitchell JA, Byun W, Dowda M (2011) Sedentary behaviour in youth. Brit J Sports Med 45: 906–13.
- 22. Verloigne M, Van Lippevelde W, Maes L, Brug J, De Bourdeaudhuij I (2012) Family- and school-based correlates of energy balance-related behaviours in 10–12-year-old children: A systematic review within the ENERGY (EuropeaN Energy balance Research to prevent excessive weight Gain among Youth) project. Public Health Nutr 15: 1380–95.
- 23. Gorely T, Atkin AJ, Biddle SJ, Marshall SJ (2009) Family circumstance, sedentary behaviour and physical activity in adolescents living in England: Project STIL. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 6: 33.
- 24. Hardy LL, Dobbins T, Booth ML, Denney-Wilson E, Okely AD (2006) Sedentary behaviours among Australian adolescents. Aust N Z J Public Health 30: 534–40.
- 25. Olds TS, Maher CA, Ridley K, Kittel DM (2010) Descriptive epidemiology of screen and non-screen sedentary time in adolescents: A cross sectional study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 7: 92.
- 26. Biddle SJ (2007) Sedentary behavior. Am J Prev Med 33: 502–4.
- 27. Biddle SJ, Gorely T, Marshall SJ (2009) Is television viewing a suitable marker of sedentary behavior in young people? Ann Behav Med 38: 147–53.
- 28. Nilsson A, Andersen LB, Ommundsen Y, Froberg K, Sardinha LB, et al. (2009) Correlates of objectively assessed physical activity and sedentary time in children: A cross-sectional study (The European Youth Heart Study). BMC Public Health 9: 322.
- 29. Basterfield L, Adamson AJ, Frary JK, Parkinson KN, Pearce MS, et al. (2011) Longitudinal study of physical activity and sedentary behavior in children. Pediatrics 127: e24–e30.
- 30. Uijtdewilligen L, Nauta J, Singh AS, van Mechelen W, Twisk JW, et al. (2011) Determinants of physical activity and sedentary behaviour in young people: A review and quality synthesis of prospective studies. Brit J Sports Med 45: 896–905.
- 31. van Sluijs EM, Skidmore PM, Mwanza K, Jones AP, Callaghan AM, et al. (2008) Physical activity and dietary behaviour in a population-based sample of British 10-year old children: The SPEEDY study (Sport, Physical activity and Eating behaviour: environmental Determinants in Young people). BMC Public Health 8: 388.
- 32. Evenson KR, Catellier DJ, Gill K, Ondrak KS, McMurray RG (2008) Calibration of two objective measures of physical activity for children. J Sports Sci 26: 1557–65.
- 33. Treuth MS, Schmitz K, Catellier DJ, McMurray RG, Murray DM, et al. (2004) Defining accelerometer thresholds for activity intensities in adolescent girls. Med Sci Sports Exerc 36: 1259–66.
- 34. Ridgers ND, Salmon J, Ridley K, O'Connell E, Arundell L, et al. (2012) Agreement between activPAL and Actigraph for assessing children's sedentary time. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 9: 15.
- 35. Trost SG, Loprinzi PD, Moore R, Pfeiffer KA (2011) Comparison of accelerometer cut points for predicting activity intensity in youth. Med Sci Sports Exerc 43: 1360–8.
- 36. Corder K, van Sluijs EM, Ekelund U, Jones AP, Griffin SJ (2010) Changes in children's physical activity over 12 months: Longitudinal results from the SPEEDY study. Pediatrics 126: e926–35.
- 37. Sardinha LB, Andersen LB, Anderssen SA, Quiterio AL, Ornelas R, et al. (2008) Objectively measured time spent sedentary is associated with insulin resistance independent of overall and central body fat in 9- to 10-year-old Portuguese children. Diab Care 31: 569–75.
- 38. Fitzmaurice G (2001) A conundrum in the analysis of change. Nutrition 17: 360–1.
- 39. Ball K, Cleland VJ, Timperio AF, Salmon J, Crawford DA (2009) Socioeconomic position and children's physical activity and sedentary behaviors: Longitudinal findings from the CLAN study. J Phys Act Health 6: 289–98.
- 40. van der Horst K, Chinapaw MJ, Twisk JW, van Mechelen W (2007) A brief review on correlates of physical activity and sedentariness in youth. Med Sci Sports Exerc 39: 1241–50.
- 41. Gebremariam MK, Totland TH, Andersen LF, Bergh IH, Bjelland M, et al. (2012) Stability and change in screen-based sedentary behaviours and associated factors among Norwegian children in the transition between childhood and adolescence. BMC Public Health 12: 104.
- 42. Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Nader PR, Broyles SL, Berry CC, et al. (2002) Home environmental influences on children's television watching from early to middle childhood. J Dev Behav Pediatr 23: 127–32.
- 43. Davison KK, Francis LA, Birch LL (2005) Links between parents' and girls' television viewing behaviors: A longitudinal examination. J Pediatr 147: 436–42.
- 44. Granich J, Rosenberg M, Knuiman MW, Timperio A (2011) Individual, social, and physical environment factors associated with electronic media use among children: sedentary behavior at home. J Phys Act Health 8: 613–25.
- 45. Wiecha JL, Sobol AM, Peterson KE, Gortmaker SL (2001) Household television access: Associations with screen time, reading, and homework among youth. Ambul Pediatr 1: 244–51.
- 46. Dolinsky DH, Brouwer RJ, Evenson KR, Siega-Riz AM, Ostbye T (2011) Correlates of sedentary time and physical activity among preschool-aged children. Prev Chronic Dis 8: A131.
- 47. van Sluijs EM, Page A, Ommundsen Y, Griffin SJ (2010) Behavioural and social correlates of sedentary time in young people. Brit J Sports Med 44: 747–55.
- 48. Schmidt ME, Haines J, O'Brien A, McDonald J, Price S, et al. (2012) Systematic review of effective strategies for reducing screen time among young children. Obesity doi: 10.1038/oby.2011.348.
- 49. Jordan AB, Hersey JC, McDivitt JA, Heitzler CD (2006) Reducing children's television-viewing time: A qualitative study of parents and their children. Pediatrics 118: e1303–10.
- 50. Biddle SJH, O'Connell S, Braithwaite R (2011) Sedentary behaviour interventions in young people: A meta analysis. Br J Sports Med 45: 937–42.
- 51. Maniccia DM, Davison KK, Marshall SJ, Manganello JA, Dennison BA (2011) A meta-analysis of interventions that target children's screen time for reduction. Pediatrics 128: e193–e210.
- 52. Atkin AJ, Ekelund U, Moller NC, Froberg K, Sardinha LB, et al. (2012) Sedentary Time in Children: Influence of Accelerometer Processing on Health Relations. Med Sci Sports Exerc doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318282190e.
- 53. Noble M, McLennan D, Wilkinson K, Whitworth A, Barnes H, et al. The English Indices of Deprivation 2007. London, England: Communities and Local Government.: Available at: www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/733520.pdf. Accessed March 7, 2012.
- 54. Bibby P, Shepherd J (2004) Developing a new classification of urban and rural areas for policy purposes: The methods. London, England: University of London.
- 55. Wareham NJ, Jakes RW, Rennie KL, Mitchell J, Hennings S, et al. (2002) Validity and repeatability of the EPIC-Norfolk Physical Activity Questionnaire. Int J Epidemiol 311: 168–74.
- 56. Wareham NJ, Jakes RW, Rennie KL, Schuit J, Mitchell J, et al. (2003) Validity and repeatability of a simple index derived from the short physical activity questionnaire used in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study. Public Health Nutr 6: 407–13.
- 57. Salmon J, Telford A, Crawford D (2004) The Children's Leisure Activities Study (CLASS): Summary Report. Melbourne: Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research, Deakin University.
- 58. Salmon J, Timperio A, Telford A, Carver A, Crawford D (2005) Association of family environment with children's television viewing and with low level of physical activity. Obes Res 13: 1939–51.
- 59. Ommundsen Y, Page A, Ku PW, Cooper AR (2008) Cross-cultural, age and gender validation of a computerised questionnaire measuring personal, social and environmental associations with children's physical activity: The European Youth Heart Study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 5: 29.