Typologies of Family Functioning and 24-h Movement Behaviors

Michelle D. Guerrero, Joel D. Barnes, Mark S. Tremblay and Laura Pulkki-Råback
Additional contact information
Michelle D. Guerrero: Healthy Active Living and Obesity Research Group, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L1, Canada
Joel D. Barnes: College of Kinesiology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N 5B2, Canada
Mark S. Tremblay: Healthy Active Living and Obesity Research Group, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L1, Canada
Laura Pulkki-Råback: Department of Psychology and Logopedics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Helsinki, 00100 Helsinki, Finland

IJERPH, 2021, vol. 18, issue 2, 1-10

Abstract: Research on the importance of the family environment on children’s health behaviors is ubiquitous, yet critical gaps in the literature exist. Many studies have focused on one family characteristic and have relied on variable-centered approaches as opposed to person-centered approaches (e.g., latent profile analysis). The purpose of the current study was to use latent profile analysis to identify family typologies characterized by parental acceptance, parental monitoring, and family conflict, and to examine whether such typologies are associated with the number of movement behavior recommendations (i.e., physical activity, screen time, and sleep) met by children. Data for this cross-sectional observational study were part of the baseline data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study. Data were collected across 21 study sites in the United States. Participants included 10,712 children (female = 5143, males = 5578) aged 9 and 10 years (M = 9.91, SD = 0.62). Results showed that children were meaningfully classified into one of five family typologies. Children from families with high acceptance, medium monitoring, and medium conflict (P2; OR = 0.54; 95% CI, 0.39–0.76); high acceptance , medium monitoring , and high conflict (P3; OR = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.20, 0.40); low acceptance , low monitoring , and medium conflict (P4; OR = 0.24; 95% CI, 0.16, 0.36); and medium acceptance , low monitoring , and high conflict (P5; OR = 0.19; 95% CI, 0.12–0.29) were less likely to meet all three movement behavior recommendations compared to children from families with high acceptance , high monitoring , and low conflict (P1). These findings highlight the importance of the family environment for promoting healthy movement behaviors among children.

Keywords: latent profile analysis; physical activity; sleep; screen time; family environment; children (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/2/699/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/2/699/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:2:p:699-:d:480783

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().