Discrepancies Between Self-reported and Objectively Measured Smartphone Screen Time: Before and During Lockdown.

Pedro B Júdice, Eduarda Sousa-Sá, António L Palmeira
{"title":"Discrepancies Between Self-reported and Objectively Measured Smartphone Screen Time: Before and During Lockdown.","authors":"Pedro B Júdice,&nbsp;Eduarda Sousa-Sá,&nbsp;António L Palmeira","doi":"10.1007/s10935-023-00724-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Screen time shows higher health risks compared to other types of sedentary behaviors. A lockdown may simultaneously increase screen time, reduce physical activity (PA), and change time perception. Our goal was to compare self-reported against objectively measured smartphone screen time (SST) in a sample of active and inactive Portuguese adults before and during a social lockdown. This study was a cross-sectional analysis with 211 Portuguese adults (57.8% males), aged 25.2 ± 8.5 years, from two cohorts, one before the social lockdown and the other during the lockdown. SST was self-reported (SR-SST) and objectively measured using a smartphone (OM-SST). PA was self-reported. Linear regressions were performed to determine the association between SR-SST and OM-SST. A Bland and Altman analysis was used to assess agreement. Independent T-tests were performed for comparisons between cohorts and paired sample T-tests for comparisons within each cohort. The cohort assessed during the lockdown showed a higher SST than the cohort assessed before the lockdown (OM-SST; p < 0.001 and SR-SST; p = 0.009). Before the lockdown, there was no difference between SR-SST and OM-SST (p = 0.100). However, during the social lockdown, although the agreement between SR-SST and OM-SST was good (ICC = 0.72), participants systematically underestimated their SST by ~ 71 min/day (p < 0.001), and this underestimation was higher in inactive participants (~ 85 min/day) than in active individuals (~ 49 min/day). The general population needs to be aware of the benefits of limiting screen time, especially during periods of societal modifications, such as a generalized lockdown. There was a tendency to underestimate SST, meaning a lack of awareness of the actual time spent in this potentially deleterious behavior. This underestimation was more pronounced during the lockdown period and for the inactive participants, thus posing a greater health risk. The findings from this investigation entail relevant information for policy makers to delineate strategies for reducing population screen time from a preventive health perspective.</p>","PeriodicalId":73905,"journal":{"name":"Journal of prevention (2022)","volume":"44 3","pages":"291-307"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9872730/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of prevention (2022)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-023-00724-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Screen time shows higher health risks compared to other types of sedentary behaviors. A lockdown may simultaneously increase screen time, reduce physical activity (PA), and change time perception. Our goal was to compare self-reported against objectively measured smartphone screen time (SST) in a sample of active and inactive Portuguese adults before and during a social lockdown. This study was a cross-sectional analysis with 211 Portuguese adults (57.8% males), aged 25.2 ± 8.5 years, from two cohorts, one before the social lockdown and the other during the lockdown. SST was self-reported (SR-SST) and objectively measured using a smartphone (OM-SST). PA was self-reported. Linear regressions were performed to determine the association between SR-SST and OM-SST. A Bland and Altman analysis was used to assess agreement. Independent T-tests were performed for comparisons between cohorts and paired sample T-tests for comparisons within each cohort. The cohort assessed during the lockdown showed a higher SST than the cohort assessed before the lockdown (OM-SST; p < 0.001 and SR-SST; p = 0.009). Before the lockdown, there was no difference between SR-SST and OM-SST (p = 0.100). However, during the social lockdown, although the agreement between SR-SST and OM-SST was good (ICC = 0.72), participants systematically underestimated their SST by ~ 71 min/day (p < 0.001), and this underestimation was higher in inactive participants (~ 85 min/day) than in active individuals (~ 49 min/day). The general population needs to be aware of the benefits of limiting screen time, especially during periods of societal modifications, such as a generalized lockdown. There was a tendency to underestimate SST, meaning a lack of awareness of the actual time spent in this potentially deleterious behavior. This underestimation was more pronounced during the lockdown period and for the inactive participants, thus posing a greater health risk. The findings from this investigation entail relevant information for policy makers to delineate strategies for reducing population screen time from a preventive health perspective.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

自我报告和客观测量的智能手机屏幕时间之间的差异:锁定前和锁定期间。
与其他类型的久坐行为相比,看屏幕的时间显示出更高的健康风险。封锁可能同时增加屏幕时间,减少身体活动(PA),并改变时间感知。我们的目标是比较自我报告和客观测量的智能手机屏幕时间(SST),在社交封锁之前和期间,在活跃和不活跃的葡萄牙成年人样本中。本研究对211名葡萄牙成年人(57.8%为男性)进行了横断面分析,年龄25.2±8.5岁,来自两个队列,一个在社会封锁之前,另一个在封锁期间。SST采用自我报告(SR-SST)和智能手机客观测量(OM-SST)。PA是自我报告的。通过线性回归来确定SR-SST和OM-SST之间的关系。使用Bland和Altman分析来评估一致性。队列间比较采用独立t检验,每个队列内比较采用配对样本t检验。在封锁期间评估的队列显示出比封锁前评估的队列更高的SST (OM-SST;p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信