ArticleBMC public health2018
The relationship between sedentary behaviour and physical literacy in Canadian children: a cross-sectional analysis from the RBC-CAPL Learn to Play study.
Article in BMC public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perceived physical literacy, self-reported physical activity, and sports video gaming among university students: a cross-sectional study.Journal of exercise science and fitness · 2026Article
- Association Between Physical Literacy and Quality of Life Among Japanese Adults: The Mediating Role of Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Cultural adaptation, validation, and first application of the Canadian assessment of physical literacy (CAPL-2) in Lithuanian primary school children.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
- Latent Profile Analysis of Children's Active Physical Recreation Patterns in Middle Childhood.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- [Health literacy and health behaviour-insights into a developing field of research and action for public health].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2025Article
- Is leisure sedentary time associated with mental health issues? Evidence from China Health and Nutrition Survey.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Associations between levels of physical literacy and adherence to the 24-h movement guidelines among university students: A cross-sectional study.Journal of exercise science and fitness · 2024Article
- Associations between children's physical literacy and well-being: is physical activity a mediator?BMC public health · 2022Article
- Translation and validation of the Canadian assessment of physical literacy-2 in a Danish sample.BMC public health · 2021Article
- Understanding physical literacy in the context of health: a rapid scoping review.BMC public health · 2020Article
- Sedentary Behaviors of a School Population in Brazil and Related Factors.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Influence of the relative age effect on children's scores obtained from the Canadian assessment of physical literacy.BMC public health · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPhysical literacy is the foundation of a physically active lifestyle. Sedentary behaviour displays deleterious associations with important health indicators in children. However, the association between sedentary behaviour and physical literacy is unknown. The purpose of this study was to identify the aspects of physical literacy that are associated with key modes of sedentary behaviour among Canadian children participating in the RBC-CAPL Learn to Play study.
methodsA total of 8,307 children aged 8.0-12.9 years were included in the present analysis. Physical literacy was assessed using the Canadian Assessment of Physical Literacy, which measures four domains (Physical Competence, Daily Behaviour, Motivation and Confidence, Knowledge and Understanding). Screen-based sedentary behaviours (TV viewing, computer and video game use), non-screen sedentary behaviours (reading, doing homework, sitting and talking to friends, drawing, etc.) and total sedentary behaviour were assessed via self-report questionnaire. Linear regression models were used to determine significant (p<0.05) correlates of each mode of sedentary behaviour.
resultsIn comparison to girls, boys reported more screen time (2.7±2.0 vs 2.2±1.8 hours/day, Cohen's d=0.29), and total sedentary behaviour (4.3±2.6 vs 3.9±2.4 hours/day, Cohen's d=0.19), but lower non-screen-based sedentary behaviour (1.6±1.3 vs 1.7±1.3 hours/day, Cohen's d=0.08) (all p< 0.05). Physical Competence (standardized β's: -0.100 to -0.036, all p<0.05) and Motivation and Confidence (standardized β's: -0.274 to -0.083, all p<0.05) were negatively associated with all modes of sedentary behaviour in fully adjusted models. Knowledge and Understanding was negatively associated with screen-based modes of sedentary behaviour (standardized β's: -0.039 to -0.032, all p<0.05), and positively associated with non-screen sedentary behaviour (standardized β: 0.098, p<0.05). Progressive Aerobic Cardiovascular Endurance Run score and log-transformed plank score were negatively associated with all screen-based modes of sedentary behaviour, while the Canadian Agility and Movement Skill Assessment score was negatively associated with all modes of sedentary behaviour other than TV viewing (all p<0.05).
conclusionsThese results highlight differences in the ways that screen and non-screen sedentary behaviours relate to physical literacy. Public health interventions should continue to target screen-based sedentary behaviours, given their potentially harmful associations with important aspects of physical literacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.