↓ Skip to main content

The use of entertainment and communication technologies before sleep could affect sleep and weight status: a population-based study among children

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
28 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
271 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The use of entertainment and communication technologies before sleep could affect sleep and weight status: a population-based study among children
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12966-017-0547-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nomathemba Dube, Kaviul Khan, Sarah Loehr, Yen Chu, Paul Veugelers

Abstract

Short sleep duration and poor sleep quality have been demonstrated to be associated with childhood obesity. It has been suggested that electronic entertainment and communication devices (EECDs) including TVs, computers, tablets, video games and cell phones interfere with sleep in children and youth. The aim of this study was to assess the impact that the use of EECDs in the hour before bedtime has on sleep and weight status to inform sleep promotion interventions and programs to prevent childhood obesity. A provincially representative sample of 2334 grade 5 children and their parents in Alberta, Canada was surveyed. Parents reported their child's bedtime and wake-up time along with how often their child snored, felt sleepy during the day, woke-up at night and woke-up in the morning feeling unrefreshed. Sleep duration, sleep quality and sleep efficiency were derived from these indicators. Parents also reported on the presence of EECDs in their child's bedroom, while children reported use of EECDs during the day and frequency of using each of these devices during the hour before sleep. The height and weight of children were measured. Multivariable mixed effect linear and logistic regression models were used to determine how sleep duration, sleep quality, sleep efficiency and weight status are influenced by (i) access to EECDs in children's bedrooms, (ii) use of EECDs during the hour before sleep, and (iii) calming activities specifically reading during the hour before sleep. Sleep duration was shorter by -10.8 min (cell phone), -10.2 min (computer) and -7.8 min (TV) for those with bedroom access to and used these EECDs during the hour before sleep compared to no access and no use. Good sleep quality was hindered by bedroom access to and use of all EECDs investigated during the hour before sleep, particularly among users of cell phones (OR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.58-0.71) and computers (OR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.65-0.80). Very good sleep efficiency was decreased by access to and frequent use of a TV (54%), cell phone (52%), tablet (51%) and video games (51%). Odds of obesity were doubled by bedroom access to and use of a TV and computer during the hour before sleep. Children who rarely read a printed book in the bedroom during the hour before sleep had a shorter sleep duration and poorer sleep quality and sleep efficiency compared to their peers. Having access to an EECD in the bedroom was associated with increased obesity despite frequently reading during the hour before sleep. Our findings suggest that sleep duration, sleep quality, sleep efficiency and weight status are better among children who do not have EECDs in the bedroom and frequently read a book during the hour before sleep as opposed to those who use EECDs during this hour. Education of limits against EECD use by parents may improve sleep outcomes. These findings will inform health promotion messages and may give rise to national recommendations regarding EECD use. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01914185 . Registered 31 July 2013 Retrospectively registered.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 271 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 271 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 50 18%
Student > Master 35 13%
Unspecified 18 7%
Researcher 18 7%
Student > Postgraduate 17 6%
Other 55 20%
Unknown 78 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 15%
Psychology 29 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 8%
Unspecified 18 7%
Social Sciences 15 6%
Other 51 19%
Unknown 95 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 March 2019.
All research outputs
#1,468,657
of 22,990,068 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#570
of 1,937 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,305
of 315,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#21
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,990,068 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,937 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,212 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.