Nowhere to Go and Nothing to Do but Sit? Youth Screen Time and the Association With Access to Neighborhood Destinations

Abstract

With not much to do in their neighborhood, youth may spend more time in the home engaged in screen-based activities. Screen time data from 2790 youth in the Western Australian Health and Wellbeing Survey was linked to objectively measured count of types of neighborhood 'services,' 'convenience goods,' 'public open space' and 'youth-related' destinations. On average, youth accrued 801 mean mins/week screen time and had access to seven different types of neighborhood destinations. A larger number of different types of neighborhood 'youth-related,' 'service' and 'total' destinations were associated with less screen time (all p ≤ .05). A significant gender interaction was observed. Girls with access to ≥12 youth-related destinations had 109 fewer mean mins/week screen time, compared with girls with 0-3 youthrelated destinations. Providing alternatives to screen use by ensuring access to a variety of neighborhood places for structured and unstructured activities may be an important strategy for decreasing youth screen time.

Is a Perceived Activity-Friendly Environment Associated with More Physical Activity and Fewer Screen-Based Activities in Adolescents?

“…This is in line with previous research, which suggests that the built environment may be key in promoting an active lifestyle among adolescents [ 22 ]. Our findings are in line with previous studies among Australian children and youth [ 23 , 24 ]. Veitch et al [ 23 ] showed that parental satisfaction with the quality of their local parks was associated with less computer time, and that greater public open spaces were associated with less TV viewing among children.…”

Using spatial measures to test a conceptual model of social infrastructure that supports health and wellbeing

“…suggesting that destination and service planning in communities has important implications for population health outcomes (McCormack et al 2008;Nathan et al 2012;Millward et al 2013;Christian et al 2017) and active transport behaviours in communities (Hooper et al 2012;King et al 2015;Christiansen et al 2016;Gunn et al 2016). Good neighbourhood design that supports health needs to be available in more cities across the world leading from the examples of Copenhagen in Denmark, Kuopio in Finland, Frieberg in Germany and Portland in the U.S.A. (Barton 2017).…”

“…The conceptual model of social infrastructure and proposed distances were based on previous built environment and health findings (McCormack et al 2008;Nathan et al 2012;Millward et al 2013;Christian et al 2017). Hence, three different buffer distances of 800, 1200 and 1600 m, and a service-specific buffer were applied in all analyses to determine the influence of geographical distance.…”

Neighborhood built environment and socioeconomic status in relation to physical activity, sedentary behavior, and weight status of adolescents

“…12,13 One study reported adolescents living in mixed-use neighborhoods spent less time watching television. 14…”