4.6 Article

Self-Reported Screen Time and Cardiometabolic Risk in Obese Dutch Adolescents

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 7, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053333

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. ZONMW [50-50110-98-255]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: It is not clear whether the association between sedentary time and cardiometabolic risk exists among obese adolescents. We examined the association between screen time (TV and computer time) and cardiometabolic risk in obese Dutch adolescents. Methods and Findings: For the current cross-sectional study, baseline data of 125 Dutch overweight and obese adolescents (12-18 years) participating in the Go4it study were included. Self-reported screen time (Activity Questionnaire for Adolescents and Adults) and clustered and individual cardiometabolic risk (i.e. body composition, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, low-density (LDL-C), high-density (HDL-C) and total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides, glucose and insulin) were assessed in all participants. Multiple linear regression analyses were used to assess the association between screen time and cardiometabolic risk, adjusting for age, gender, pubertal stage, ethnicity and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. We found no significant relationship between self-reported total screen time and clustered cardiometabolic risk or individual risk factors in overweight and obese adolescents. Unexpectedly, self-reported computer time, but not TV time, was slightly but significantly inversely associated with TC (B = -0.002; CI = [-0.003; -0.000]) and LDL-C (B = -0.002; CI = [-0.001; 0.000]). Conclusions: In obese adolescents we could not confirm the hypothesised positive association between screen time and cardiometabolic risk. Future studies should consider computer use as a separate class of screen behaviour, thereby also discriminating between active video gaming and other computer activities.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available