Proportions of youth with visual impairments meeting 24‐hr movement guidelines

Abstract

Background Recent movement behaviour guidelines prescribe the optimal time spent in physical activity, screen time, and sleep across a 24‐hr period. The proportion of youth with visual impairments meeting 0, 1, 2, or all 3 of these 24 movement guidelines is unknown. The primary purpose of this observational, cross‐sectional analysis was to examine the proportions of youth with visual impairments in the United States who partially or fully meet the physical activity, screen time, and sleep duration guidelines. A secondary purpose of this analysis was to examine whether demographic variables were associated with the odds of youth with visual impairments meeting these guidelines. Methods This study included 561 youth with visual impairments from the 2016 to 2017 National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH). Accounting for the NSCH sampling plan, Complex Samples was used to estimate the prevalence of meeting 24‐hr movement guidelines, and a multinomial logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine the odds ratio of guidelines met across different demographic factors. Results Of the participants in this study, 18.7%, 50.7%, and 73.2% met physical activity, sleep, and screen time guidelines, respectively. Just 5.8% of the sample met all three of the 24‐hr movement guidelines, whereas 10.6% did not meet any of the three guidelines. Conclusions The proportion of the sample meeting of all three guidelines was low, thus depriving the majority of this population of the physiological and psychological health benefits of meeting each guideline. Moreover, the study identifies physical inactivity as a key risk factor that requires attention in this population.

U.S. Physical Activity Para Report Card for Children and Adolescents With Disabilities

“…Similarly, just 42.4% of children receiving special education services from 2011 to 2014 NHANES (Wilson et al, 2016), and 43.8% of youth with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder from 2018 to 2019 NSCH (Wang et al, 2022), were identified as meeting the SB guideline. There were some outliers in the extant literature (Haegele, Zhu, et al, 2020) that examined SB among 561 youth with visual impairments from the 2016 to 2017 NSCH data set and found that 73.2% engaged in 2 hr/day or less of screen time. In addition, Brown et al (2021) found that 47.6% of children with neurodevelopmental disabilities from 2018 to 2019 NSCH met the SB guideline.…”

Adherence to 24‐h movement guidelines among Chinese children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities

“…The 24-h movement guidelines are also appropriate for children and youth with disabilities (Tremblay et al 2016). A few studies have investigated the adherence of these guidelines among youth with different disabilities or disease conditions, such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD), epilepsy, visual impairments, physical disabilities and chronic conditions (Healy et al 2019;Ronen & Janssen 2019;Haegele et al 2020;Arbour-Nicitopoulos et al 2021). These studies have indicated that the prevalence of meeting all three recommendations among the youth ranges from 0.3% (Ronen & Janssen 2019) to 6.54% (Healy et al 2019).…”

“…Moreover, socio-demographic correlates (i.e. gender, age, race/ethnicity, household poverty level and disabilities severity) of meeting the 24-h movement guidelines among youth with disabilities have also been examined (Healy et al 2019;Haegele et al 2020;Arbour-Nicitopoulos et al 2021). Two studies have investigated gender and arrived at inconsistent findings.…”

“…Two studies have investigated gender and arrived at inconsistent findings. Haegele et al (2020) reported that females are more likely to meet the 24-h movement guidelines. Meanwhile, Arbour-Nicitopoulos et al (2021) did not find gender differences.…”

Gender differences in postural balance, physical activity level, BMI, and body composition in athletes with visual impairment

“…Physical activity (PA) levels of individuals with VI are lower and their body mass index (BMI) is higher compared to their peers without disabilities (Furtado et al, 2015;Haegele et al, 2019aHaegele et al, , 2019bHaegele et al, , 2020Haegele & Zhu, 2019;Kirk et al, 2020). In addition, PA levels differ between males and females with VI (Augestad & Jiang, 2015;Holbrook et al, 2009).…”