1 / 17

(1) Ferenc Márványkövi , (2) József Rácz , (3) Ágnes Németh

ollie
Download Presentation

(1) Ferenc Márványkövi , (2) József Rácz , (3) Ágnes Németh

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Psychosocial risk factors of problematic sedentary behaviour among Hungarian adolescents in 2010(1): Research Institute for drug studies and Program Evaluation, marvanykovi@rids.hu (2):, ELTE PPK Institute of psychology, racz.jozsef@ppk.elte.hu(3): National institute of children’s health (ogyei), nagi@ogyei.hu Health Behaviour in School-aged Children, 2010. (1) FerencMárványkövi, (2) JózsefRácz, (3) ÁgnesNémeth

  2. Can’t help it…

  3. Introduction • Problematic sedentary behaviour: excessive TV viewing, playing video and computer games, Internet use (chatting, surfing) (Salmon et al., 2008; Must and Tybor, 2005) • Excessive: 2 hrs + a day (American Academy of Paediatrics, 2001) • Increasing screentime worldwide (WHO, 2012) • Related problems - Physical health problems: risk factor for obesity and related cardiovascular and metabolic abnormalities (Mark and Janssen, 2008; DeMattia et al., 2007). - Social health problems: disengagement from social activities and peers (Richards et al, 2010 Brown & Witherspoon, 2003). - Mental health problems: depression, anxiety, body self-image issues (Ussher et al, 2007; Brodersen et al, 2005). • Correlation of physical activity, obesity and problematic sedentary behaviour more extensively explored (Fuller et al, 2012; Kuntsche et al, 2006) • Why psychosocial background? Key-role in tackling obesity problems (Luttikhuis, et al, 2009; Wilfley et al, 2007)

  4. Hungary: facts, trends • 2002-2010: slightly increasing screen time among school-aged children including 11th graders but still below EU average (Aszmann et al, 2003; Németh et al, 2007, 2011) • Latest wave in 2010: small amount of physical activity, great amount of screen time (Németh et al, 2011) • Problematic sedentary behaviour as predictor of decreasedsubjective psychological well-being (Németh et al, 2010)

  5. Objectives 1 To investigate the multidimensional correlates of basic socio-demographic, socio-economic, psychosocial factors AND problematic sedentary behaviour among Hungarian adolescents (11th graders) based on the 2010 wave of HBSC study 2 To explore a useful psychosocial explanatory model for adolescent problematic sedentary behaviour

  6. METHODS 1 • Sample and sampling method • Representative sample of Hungarian 11th graders (2,315 - 1,171 boys, 1,144 girls, mean age: 17,7, SD=0,73) • Sampling protocol used (Currie et al, 2012) • Research tool: Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children study: young people's well-being, health behaviours and their social context • Data procession and statistical analysis: SPSS 13.0, PearsonChi-square-tests, ANOVAs, binary logistic regression

  7. METHODS 2 Dependent variables (problematic sedentary behaviour) 1 Volume of TV, DVD and VRC watching during weekdays (max1 hour, 2 hours or more) 2 Volume of playing computer games (ECGP) during weekdays (max1 hour, 2 hours or more) 3 Volume of TV and ECGP during weekdays (doing both for more than 2 hours, doing less of any) Independent variables (determinants) 1 Socio-demography: gender, age, family structure, siblings, type of school, type of settlement, region 2 Socio-economy: father’s SES, mother’s SES (5 categories, both based on employment status and education), family affluence (4 categories, based on owing a computer, car, an own bedroom, family holidays in the past 12 months) 3 School domain: perceived school performance (4 categories), attachment to school (4 categories), classmate support (3 variables added: 13 –item scale), general perception of teachers (4 variables added: 17-item scale) 4 Family domain: parental monitoring (5 variables added:17-item scale), perceived attachment to parents (3 variables added, 9-item scale), communication with parents and best friend (4-item scale) 5 Peer domain: number of friends (4 categories), num of weekday afternoons with friends (6 categories), num of evenings with friends (8 categories), electronic media contact (EMC) (weekly, 5 categories), Social Self-Esteem (5 variables added: 16-item scale) 6 Sensation seeking (Brief Sensation Seeking Scale - HOYLE et al., 2002; URBÁN, 2009) (10 variables added, 33-item scale) 7 Subjective well-being: Child Depression Scale (Kovács, 1985; Rózsa et al., 1999) (3 categories), Adolescent self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965) (10 variables added, 30-item scale)

  8. Heavy TV viewing and excessive computer game playing (ECGP)

  9. Problematic sedentary behaviour: breakdown by gender TV, video, VCR (%) Chi-square=6,44; df=1; P < 0.05 Chi-square=199,03; df=1; P < 0.00

  10. Determinants of excessive TV, DVD and VCR viewing * p < 0,05 ** p < 0,01 *** p < 0,001 Total variance explained: 12,1% (Nagelkerke R Square)

  11. Determinants of ECGP * p < 0,05 ** p < 0,01 *** p < 0,001 Total variance explained: 24,1% (Nagelkerke R Square)

  12. Main gender-related differences regarding determinants

  13. Determinants of excessive TV viewing and ECGP * p < 0,05 ** p < 0,01 *** p < 0,001 Total variance explained: 14,0% (Nagelkerke R Square) Main gender-related differences in determinants

  14. Discussion and conclusion 1 • Results consistent with earlier research regarding determinants 1 Heavy TV viewing: lower parental socioeconomic status (Rey-López et al, 2011;Fairclough et al, 2011), weaker school performance (Krosnick et al, 2010; Gentile and Walsh, 2002), single-parent families (Gorely et al, 2009; Gentile et al, 2002), lack of classmate support (Kuntsche et al, 2008) 2 ECGP: adolescent males (Iannotti et al., 2009; Mark et al., 2006), weaker school performance (Gentile et al, 2002; Chiu, Lee, and Huang, 2004), higher level of depression (Niemz, Griffiths, and Banyard, 2005; Whang, Lee, Chang, 2003), lower sensation seeking (Roberts, Foehr and Rideout, 2005), more EMC (van den Eijnden, 2008) • Results inconsistent with earlier research: low attachment to peers and heavy TV viewing and excessive ECGP (Richards et al, 2010; Lee and Chae, 2007) vs. HBSC 2010: higher attachment to peers, more ECGP (if more EMC and evenings out is interpreted as higher attachment): more EMC, more computer use (van den Eijnden, 2008)? • Low sensation seekers socialize less (Sheldon, 2012), low sensation seekers play more computer? (Extensive literature on the correlation of sensation seeking and media CONTENT (Bagdasarov et al, 2010): high sensation seeking – violent, exciting games)

  15. Discussion and conclusion 2 • Too much screen time • Less psychosocial influence at this age • Importance of school and peer domains – less parental influence at this age • No clinical intervention is necessarily needed for excessive media users • Gender-related differences (males - peer domain, females - school domain, depression; total variance explained) • Peer influences should not necessarily be limited • Prevention strategies should take into account differences in type of media use and gender when tackling excessive media use

  16. Limitations • Comparison with similar research was difficult (age, variables) • Great deal of communication and time spent with peers = Higher attachment?

  17. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION www.rids.hu

More Related