PTCohortChild: care, health and development2020

Proportions of youth with visual impairments meeting 24-hr movement guidelines.

Justin A Haegele, Xihe Zhu, Sean Healy and 1 others

PMID 31999004

WHAT IT FOUND

Only 5.8% of 561 US youth with visual impairments met all three 24-hour activity, screen time, and sleep guidelines.

Few met daily physical activity, while screen time limits were often met.

Key findings

01Only 5.8% of 561 youth with visual impairments met all three 24-hour movement guidelines, and 10.6% met none.

02Few met the physical activity guideline (18.7%), about half met sleep duration (50.7%), and most met screen time limits (73.2%).

03Female participants were significantly more likely to meet one guideline than male participants, and Black/non-Hispanic and other/multiracial participants were significantly less likely to meet all three guidelines than White/non-Hispanic peers.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The findings are parent and guardian reports from one question for each behaviour, so they do not show measured activity time, intensity, or sleep details. The study is cross-sectional, so it cannot show that changing physical activity, screen time, or sleep would improve health outcomes. The survey had weighted response rates of 40.7% in 2016 and 37.4% in 2017, and the authors note possible nonresponse and coverage biases. The analysis used broad categories and dichotomised variables, which may make guideline adherence look more liberal than it is. The association between higher household poverty and meeting all three guidelines had a wide confidence interval (1.02 to 16.20), so it should not be treated as a stable finding.

Declared interests

The article metadata lists Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read the low physical activity rate as proof that a physical activity intervention works. This paper measured reported behaviour at one time point, not the effect of therapy.

Read it on PubMed →