Variations in Children's screen time behaviors by weight status among a mostly disadvantaged population.

Variations in Children’s screen time behaviors by weight status among a mostly disadvantaged population - PMC Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Search Log in Dashboard Publications Account settings Log out Search… Search NCBI Primary site navigation Search Logged in as: Dashboard Publications Account settings Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide PERMALINK Copy As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice PLoS One . 2026 Apr 17;21(4):e0346235. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0346235 Search in PMC Search in PubMed View in NLM Catalog Add to search Variations in Children’s screen time behaviors by weight status among a mostly disadvantaged population Paul Son Paul Son 1 School of Kinesiology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States of America Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing Find articles by Paul Son 1 , Yuxin Nie Yuxin Nie 1 School of Kinesiology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States of America Data curation, Investigation, Writing – review & editing Find articles by Yuxin Nie 1 , Qiaoyin Tan Qiaoyin Tan 1 School of Kinesiology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States of America Data curation, Investigation, Writing – review & editing Find articles by Qiaoyin Tan 1 , Pengfei Yang Pengfei Yang 1 School of Kinesiology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States of America Writing – review & editing Find articles by Pengfei Yang 1 , Peyton Murray Peyton Murray 2 Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States of America Writing – review & editing, Data curation Find articles by Peyton Murray 2 , Amanda E Staiano Amanda E Staiano 2 Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States of America Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – review & editing Find articles by Amanda E Staiano 2 , Fahui Wang Fahui Wang 3 Department of Geography & Anthropology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States of America Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – review & editing Find articles by Fahui Wang 3 , Gang Hu Gang Hu 2 Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States of America Writing – review & editing Find articles by Gang Hu 2 , Stewart Gordon Stewart Gordon 2 Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States of America 4 Louisiana Healthcare Connections, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States of America Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – review & editing Find articles by Stewart Gordon 2, 4 , Senlin Chen Senlin Chen 1 School of Kinesiology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States of America Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing Find articles by Senlin Chen 1, * Editor: Rajendra Prasad Parajuli 5 Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 School of Kinesiology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States of America 2 Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States of America 3 Department of Geography & Anthropology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States of America 4 Louisiana Healthcare Connections, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States of America 5 University of California San Diego, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ✉ * E-mail: [email protected] Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Roles Paul Son : Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing Yuxin Nie : Data curation, Investigation, Writing – review & editing Qiaoyin Tan : Data curation, Investigation, Writing – review & editing Pengfei Yang : Writing – review & editing Peyton Murray : Writing – review & editing, Data curation Amanda E Staiano : Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – review & editing Fahui Wang : Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – review & editing Gang Hu : Writing – review & editing Stewart Gordon : Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing – review & editing Senlin Chen : Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing Rajendra Prasad Parajuli : Editor Received 2025 Nov 26; Accepted 2026 Mar 16; Collection date 2026. © 2026 Son et al This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13089690  PMID: 41996339 Abstract The purpose of this survey study was to comprehensively examine if various types of screen time differed between children with overweight or obesity (OWOB; ≥ 85 th BMI percentile) vs. normal weight (NW: < 85 th BMI percentile) in a largely socioeconomically disadvantaged population. 739 parent proxies of children aged 5–11 years ( M = 9.27, SD = 1.49) mostly enrolled in Medicaid (83.9%) in a United States (US) southern state responded to an online questionnaire called the Movement Behavior Questionnaire – Child (MBQ-C; open version). Eight items of the MBQ-C separately measured passive and interactive screen time on weekdays and weekend days. The survey also gathered parent-reported child weight and height, along with their sociodemographic characteristics. Compared to children with NW ( M = 294.5 ± 7.2 min/day), children with OWOB ( M = 364.3 ± 10.6 min/day) reported greater amount of total screen time ( M Diff = 69.8 min/day, 95% CI = [45.0–94.6], p < 0.001). Of the sample, 24.9% met the sedentary screen time guidelines of no more than 2 hours/day favoring children with NW ( OR = 0.59, 95% CI [0.39, 0.86], p = 0.008). The difference of screen time between weight-status groups was greatest in passive screen time, particularly on weekdays ( M Diff = 63.2 min/day, 95% CI = 47.6–78.7, p < 0.001). Demographic factors did not significantly moderate the relationship between screen time and weight status. Most of the disadvantaged children failed to meet the screen time guidelines. Children with OWOB reported higher screen time, particularly passive screen time on weekdays. These findings suggest the need for tailored interventions to not only curb overall screen time but also mitigate specific types of screen time behaviors on specific days for children with OWOB (i.e., passive screen use on weekdays). Introduction Child health predicts adult health, with early risks tracking across the life course. For example, children with obesity are five times more likely to become adults with obesity, and they are at elevated risks for diabetes and cardiovascular disease [ 1 , 2 ]. Approximately 1 in 5 U.S. children and adolescents have obesity, illustrating the urgent need for effective interventions [ 3 , 4 ]. Studies have reported that screen time is a risk factor associated with obesity and chronic diseases across populations [ 5 – 10 ]. Restricting recreational screen use to no more than 2 hours per day is a recommended global consensus by the World Health Organization (WHO) as well as national health authorities in Canada and Australia [ 11 – 13 ]. However, most children aged 8–12 years spend almost 5 hours per day in front of an electronic screen, and tweens and teens’ screen time exceeded 7 hours daily [ 14 ]. Compared to children with normal weight (NW), those with overweight or obesity (OWOB) have shown greater amount of screen time [ 15 , 16 ]. Children with OWOB are 33% less likely to adhere to the screen-time guidelines compared to children with NW [ 17 ]. Only 29.7% of children with obesity met the screen-time recommendation, compared with 38.6% of normal weight children [ 18 ]. Despite the known discrepancy in screen time by weight status, most existing evidence has examined screen time as one overarching behavior [ 19 ]. Rarely has prior research examined the various types of screen time behaviors and how they would differ by weight status. Screen time is not a one-dimensional construct. Instead, it may vary by engagement type (passive vs. interactive) and posture related-context (typically sedentary vs. standing), and children’s screen exposure levels (type and duration) may differ by the day of week (e.g., weekdays vs. weekend days), which have not been comprehensively investigated in prior research, especially in populations from lower socioeconomic status backgrounds [ 20 ]. According to the Structured Day Hypothesis ( SDH ), children usually show less desirable health behaviors (e.g., screen time, physical activity, eating) during less structured days such as weekends or summer months [ 21 , 22 ], compared to school days. The less structured periods allow for greater behavioral autonomy which leads to increased sedentary behaviors including passive screen time among children [ 23 ]. Recently, the Movement Behaviors Questionnaire ( MBQ ) has been developed and validated to address this research gap. The MBQ has child-specific (MBQ-C) items that assess passive, interactive, sedentary, and standing screen time on weekdays or weekend days [ 24 , 25 ]. The advent of this novel measure has enabled the field to comprehensively assess and understand screen time as a multidimensional health-related behavior. As a newly developed measure, the open-ended version of the MBQ-C has demonstrated acceptable reliability, with significant positive correlations observed between MBQ-C reported screen time and 24-hour diary ( ρ =  0.44–0.86). However, the MBQ has not been adopted in published research to comprehensively measure children’s screen time and its relationship with weight status. Furthermore, when examining the relationship between screen time and weight status, it is important to consider demographic factors such as age, sex, race, and socioeconomic status (SES). Although prior research has found higher screen time among older, racial/ethnic minority children from lower SES households [ 26 , 27 ], there is no evidence on how weight status interacts with demographic factors when illustrating screen time patterns. Examining these demographic moderators is important for designing and delivering screen time interventions tailored for specific populations. Therefore, this study aims to (1) comprehensively examine the association between screen time (various types on weekdays and weekend days) and weight status in a largely disadvantaged child population, and (2) explore whether this relationship would differ across demographic factors. Specifically, the study has two research questions. First, to what extent does screen time or screen time categories differ between OWOB and children with NW in this vulnerable child population? Second, do demographic factors including age, sex, race, and SES (i.e., household income) moderate the relationship between screen time and weight status? Methods Setting and participants The data reported in this study stemmed from a larger funded survey study that occurred in Louisiana between October 2023 and August 2025. We initially followed a stratified sampling strategy through community schools (considering urbanicity and area deprivation index) to invite parent proxies of children who were 5–11 years old. This effort led to 543 responses, 311 of which were valid. Nine superintendents, who oversaw forty-one elementary schools, facilitated initial recruitment using stratified sampling. To increase the sample size, we opened the survey to broader regions in the state. Multiple Louisiana Medicaid regional offices facilitated our second recruitment, including the distribution of promotional flyers. The Medicaid regional office staff were encouraged to distribute the flyer by posting hard copies in communal areas of the building and/or by emailing electronic version to Medicaid residents that their office serves. We received 6,830 additional responses, but after applying the initial eligibility criteria and a series of data-quality checks to ensure that responses were legitimate, human-generated responses, only 428 of these additional responses were deemed valid and then included in the analysis. The remaining responses that met the exclusion criteria were removed from analysis. Table 1 outlines these criteria. Table 1. Exclusion Criteria of Participants. Exclusion Criteria • Incomplete surveys • Insufficient completion duration time (< 15 mins) • Clusters of submissions received with identical timestamps • Extreme body height (e.g., > 6 ft in 2nd grade or younger) • Extreme body weight (e.g., > 200 lbs. or < 20 lbs. in 2nd grade) • Parent proxies of children ≤ 4 or ≥ 11 years old • Grade ineligibility • Inconsistent age–grade alignment • Simultaneous large batches from one location • Non-Louisiana or invalid Zip Code • Duplicate or bounced email addresses • Unusual, suspicious, fabricated email addresses • Excessive daily sleep duration (> 13 hours/day) • Out-of-range weekly bedtime routine values (> 7 nights/week) • Extreme dietary intake values (> 10 fruit/vegetable servings/day) • Incongruent income–resource responses (e.g., household income > $100k but reporting food insecurity or utility shutoffs). Open in a new tab After applying the exclusion criteria, the final sample included 739 participants. Most surveys were completed during the school semester ( n = 737, 99.72%), with most responses collected in the early stages of survey dissemination. As shown in Table 2 , the sample consisted of more male (58.2%) than female (41.7%) participants balanced by race (White vs. non-White). Most child participants of the parent responders (86.9%) were in higher elementary grades (3rd–5th grade), with a mean age of 9.27 ( SD = 1.49). A vast majority of families were Medicaid-enrolled (83.9%). Income categories were created for analytic purposes using an approximated tertile distribution with the U.S. median household income (2024 median household as $83,730) used as the reference point [ 28 ]. Of all, about one-third of children (32.6%) were deemed OWOB (≥ 85 th BMI percentile). This study received ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board of the Louisiana State University (IRBAM-22–0978). Participants provided electronic informed written consent before taking the survey. Table 2. Demographic characteristics of children. Demographics Frequency (n) Percentage (%) Sex Male 430 58.2 Female 308 41.7 Prefer not to say 1 0.1 Race White 377 50.9 Non-White 362 49.1 Grade Lower grade (K – 2nd grade) 271 13.1 Higher grade (3rd grade – 5th grade) 468 86.9 Medicaid Enrollment Yes 620 83.9 No 107 14.5 Do not know 12 1.6 Household Income Low income (~ $40,000) 249 34.7 Middle income (~ $80,000) 259 35.0 High income (above $80,000) 203 27.4 Prefer not to say 28 3.8 Weight Status Healthy or underweight 498 67.4 Overweight or Obesity 241 32.6 Total 739 100.0 Open in a new tab Variables and measures Screen time measurement utilized eight relevant questions from the MBQ-C open form. These questions consist of four items capturing children’s passive screen time and four items capturing interactive screen time. Passive screen time was characterized as time spent watching television programs, videos/internet clips or movies on a television, computer, or portable/mobile device such as iPad, tablet, or smartphone. Interactive screen time was defined as time spent playing games, looking at photos, or video chatting (e.g., FaceTime, Zoom, Skype) on a screen-based device such as a computer or laptop, video game console, iPad, tablet, or smartphone. Parent proxies were prompted to report their children’s screen time (in hours and minutes) in the following order using posture-labeled items from the MBQ-C: (1) passive sedentary screen time on a typical weekday, (2) passive standing screen time on a typical weekday, (3) passive sedentary screen time on a typical weekend day, (4) passive standing screen time on a typical weekend day, (5) interactive sedentary screen time on a typical weekday, (6) interactive standing screen time on a typical weekday, (7) interactive sedentary screen time on a typical weekend day, and (8) interactive standing screen time on a typical weekend day. In addition, following the MBQ-C scoring instructions, the total screen time, total sedentary screen time, and the combined sedentary screen time for engagement types were automatically aggregated using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap). Weight status We asked parents to report their children’s weight, height, age, and sex. They also reported the method of measurement for weight and height (e.g., directly measured, obtained from a recent medical appointment). We subsequently calculated BMI, BMIz, and BMI percentile scores. School-aged children were classified as children with NW or OWOB by 85th BMI-percentile cutoff, based on the CDC BMI categories for children and adolescents aged 2–19 [ 29 ]. In this study, NW included underweight and healthy weight, whereas OWOB included all children with BMI percentile 85 th or higher. The BMIz and BMI percentiles were calculated using the growth R package for CDC growth charts ( cdcanthro.R ) [ 30 ]. This package included the 2022 extended BMI z-score and percentile calculations for children and adolescents with obesity. Data collection and processing Data collection occurred through an online survey administered via the REDCap [ 31 , 32 ]. The survey link and accompanying instructions were distributed to recruit eligible participants. Each participant who completed the survey and met all inclusion criteria received a $20 gift card incentive to compensate for their time and effort. Following the WHO’s criteria, we removed biologically implausible observations that were outside ±5 standard deviations from the mean for the BMIz scores [ 33 , 34 ]. We also truncated screen time data points outside the 0–960 min/day range using the Interquartile Range (IQR) rule. Data analysis To address our research question, we conducted the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) using screen time variables (e.g., passive and interactive screen time on weekdays and weekend days) as outcome variables, weight status as independent variable and sex (Male vs. Female), race (White vs. non-White), household income (tertile scores), and grade as covariates. The data were reviewed for the assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variances. Estimated marginal mean differences ( EMMs ), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), Bonferroni adjusted p -values, and effect sizes ( η p 2 ) were obtained and reported from this process. We further examined if the two weight status groups would differ in meeting the screen time guidelines: 1 = adherence (≤ 2 hours per day) vs. 0 = non-adherence (> 2 hours per day). Group differences were first examined using a Chi-square test, followed by a logistic regression model with weight status as the predictor and adherence (vs non-adherence) as the outcome. For the logistic regression analysis, we reported the odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CI. These above statistical analyses were conducted in R (version 4.4.1) and RStudio (version 2024.04.2 + 764), with standard modeling and post-estimation packages and SPSS Statistics (version 23) for additional descriptive analysis. Results Screen time by weight status As illustrated in Fig 1 , about one quarter of the sample (24.9%) met the 2-hour daily screen-time recommendation; however, a significantly lower percentage of children with OWOB (18.6%) met the screen time guideline compared to children with NW (28.0%; χ² (1) = 7.12, p = 0.008). Logistic regression further verified that children with OWOB had 41% lower odds of meeting the screen time guideline than their NW counterparts ( OR = 0.59, 95% CI [0.39, 0.86], p = 0.008). Fig 1. Percentage of Children Meeting Recommended Daily Screen Time Guidelines (≤ 2 hours). Open in a new tab Table 3 summarizes children’s screen time (by engagement type and posture) by weight status on weekdays and weekend days. Analyses of the total screen time variables indicate that children with OWOB spent substantially longer time on electronic devices than children with NW, with a difference of 69.8 minutes per day for total screen time and 44.6 minutes per day for generally sedentary screen time (95% CIs : [45.0, 94.6] and [27.0, 62.1], respectively). Children with OWOB averaged over 6 hours of total screen time per day (364.3 minutes) versus approximately 5 hours among children with NW (294.5 minutes). Of the total screen time, 227.7 minutes and 183.2 minutes were in usually in sedentary posture for the two subgroups, respectively. Meanwhile, screen time was higher on weekends than on weekdays across both weight groups (e.g., passive sedentary screen time: NW group = 90.9 ± 3.2 min on weekdays vs. 135.7 ± 4.6 min on weekends), except for typically standing screen time among children with OWOB. The mean values for passive screen time were consistently higher than those for interactive screen time within the same strata (e.g., passive weekday sedentary vs. interactive weekday sedentary). Finally, the difference in screen time by weight status was significant for all variables on weekdays, indicating that children with OWOB spent more time on various forms of screen time than children with NW ( p < 0.05). In contrast, several weekend day comparisons were not statistically significant ( p > 0.05), meaning that weight related difference in screen time were less pronounced during weekends. Table 3. Screen Time (min) by Weight Status across Weekday and Weekend Days. Screen Time Variables N NW OWOB M Diff 95% CI η p 2 Mean ± SE Total Total 662 294.5 ± 7.2 364.3 ± 10.6 69.8*** [45.0, 94.6] 0.044 Sedentary 655 183.2 ± 5.1 227.7 ± 7.4 44.6*** [27.0, 62.1] 0.037 Weekday Interactive sedentary 667 65.3 ± 2.6 80.9 ± 3.9 15.6* [6.6, 24.7] 0.017 Interactive standing 671 41.8 ± 2.2 53.9 ± 3.2 12.2* [4.6, 19.7] 0.015 Interactive total 676 113.9 ± 4.1 141.4 ± 5.9 27.5** [13.6, 41.3] 0.022 Passive sedentary 646 90.9 ± 3.2 134.5 ± 4.7 43.6*** [32.6, 54.7] 0.086 Passive standing 675 52.0 ± 2.8 78.8 ± 4.1 26.9*** [17.2, 36.5] 0.043 Passive total 661 151.8 ± 4.5 215.0 ± 6.6 63.2*** [47.6, 78.7] 0.089 Weekend Interactive sedentary 678 91.8 ± 3.4 102.6 ± 4.8 10.8 [-0.5, 22.2] 0.005 Interactive standing 678 49.2 ± 2.6 67.2 ± 3.8 18.0** [9.0, 27.0] 0.023 Interactive total 689 154.0 ± 4.8 166.6 ± 7.0 12.6 [-3.7, 29.0] 0.003 Passive sedentary 681 135.7 ± 4.6 156.5 ± 6.6 20.9 [5.3, 36.4] 0.010 Passive standing 662 55.9 ± 2.8 75.2 ± 4.1 19.3** [9.7, 28.9] 0.023 Passive total 673 201.0 ± 5.2 232.3 ± 7.5 31.3** [13.6, 49.0] 0.018 Open in a new tab p * < 0.05, p ** < 0.01, p *** < 0.001 (Bonferroni corrected p -value ). NW: Children with normal weight, OWOB: Children with overweight and obesity. Fig 2 illustrates the mean differences of screen time behaviors (i.e., interactive and passive screen time, in posture-related categories labeled as sedentary or standing, on weekdays or weekend days) by weight status (OWOB–NW). Screen time difference by engagement type and timing was most evident in passive sedentary screen time on weekdays (43.6 minutes). Sedentary screen time during weekends did not show statistical significance by weight groups. The discrepancy for passive screen time was larger in all postures than that for interactive screen time. These findings suggest that the excessive screen time exposure among children with OWOB were most pronounced for passive screen time, especially on weekdays. Fig 2. Differences in Daily Screen Time (OWOB-NW) by Posture, Engagement Type, and Day of Week. Open in a new tab To address the second research question, the two-way ANOVAs revealed no significant interactions of age, sex, race, or SES with weight status for any of the screen time variables ( p > 0.05). This set of results suggests that the relationship between screen time and weight status remains the same, regardless of these demographic characteristics. Discussion The study aimed to comprehensively examine the association between screen time and weight status and to explore if this relationship would differ by demographic factors in a largely socioeconomically disadvantaged child population. The findings are discussed below. First, our study was consistent with observations made in prior research that in this population of mostly Medicaid beneficiaries from lower income households, most children engaged in excessive screen time and demonstrated low adherence to the screen time guideline, reflecting the recent trends in media usage among children [ 14 , 17 ]. More importantly, children with OWOB reported higher amount of screen time than children with NW and they were also less likely to meet the sedentary screen time guideline, consistent with prior research [ 18 , 35 , 36 ]. This observation indicates that tailored interventions are warranted to curb children’s screen time, especially for children with overweight or obesity. Second, our study further revealed a contextual pattern of children’s screen time. Overall, children reported larger screen time on weekend days than on weekdays across weight status groups. This supports the structured days hypothesis, suggesting that the structure inherent in weekdays is associated with lower screen time [ 37 ]. However, weight-status-based screen time differentials were not consistent. The discrepancy of screen time by engagement type (passive vs. interactive) and day of week (weekday vs. weekend) was greatest on passive screen time during weekdays. Children with OWOB had greater amount of screen time than children with NW on weekdays, whereas on weekends the screen time variables did not show significant difference by weight status. The observed weekday differences by weight status for screen time (e.g., passive screen time) are most likely accrued during after-school hours. Factors such as neighborhood safety, parental supervision, and access to recreational opportunities have been identified to be associated with screen time in prior research [ 38 – 40 ]. On the other hand, the relatively smaller differences observed on weekends may reflect uniformly high screen use across both weight-status groups on these less structured days, where reduced influence of contextual factors (e.g., after-school routines, parental supervision) allows overall screen exposure to rise. This elevated weekend screen time likely reduces between-group variability, attenuating differences between children with OWOB and those with NW. This set of findings suggests that efforts to reduce overall screen time especially for passive screen time among disadvantaged children may be warranted on weekend days. More importantly, future work should purposely look to curtail the screen time during after school hours of the weekdays among children with OWOB. The results for the second research question further suggest that the relationship between screen time and weight status is stable across demographic characteristics such as age, sex, race, and SES. The absence of significant moderation by demographic variables may reflect several factors. For instance, limited variability or imbalance by demographic characteristics (e.g., over 80% of the sample being Medicaid-enrolled), measurement limitations of screen-time categories, or potential model misspecification may have reduced the ability to detect interaction effects. It is also possible that these demographic factors may not meaningfully moderate or alter the associations. The strength of this paper is in its contribution to the accumulating evidence that children with overweight or obesity consistently show higher screen time than children with NW. Using a predominantly Medicaid-insured sample from a southern state in United States further expands the relevance of these findings by providing insight into an under-resourced population. Additionally, prior studies have demonstrated associations between weight status and screen time, but this study adds specificity of screen time parent-reported by posture category and engagement types. Presenting these differences with a temporal structure (weekday vs. weekend days) provides an improved understanding of screen time as a multidimensional construct (and its relationship with weight status) from the SDH perspective. Despite the novel findings, we acknowledge that our measurement of children’s screen time and body weight and height were self-reported by parent proxies (primarily mothers), which may have measurement related limitations. Accurately and efficiently measuring children’s screen time in a large sample is challenging. Most of the evidence assessing the associations between sedentary behaviors and health outcomes in children and adolescents is cross-sectional, with majority of studies being conducted based on self- or parent-reported measures of sedentary time [ 41 ]. Such measures may be subject to reporting bias, recall error, potential misclassification of sedentary versus standing screen time, and misreporting of height and weight, which might have limited our data accuracy and the observed associations. Future studies would benefit from incorporating objective measures of screen-related behaviors (e.g., accelerometry) along with ecological momentary assessments to improve measurement precision and contextual details. The screen-time items from the MBQ-C have demonstrated sound validity and have allowed for comprehensive assessment of screen time by posture, engagement type, and timing [ 25 ], which may lead to a paradigm shift in future research on children’s screen time, including conceptualization, measurement, and intervention. Yet, it is important to note that the MBQ-C was originally validated among young children from 0 to 5. MBQ-C questions that had content validity for this age range as determined by our team with expertise in developmental psychology, behavioral science, and kinesiology were included to comprehensively measure screen time (engagement type, posture, timing). Investigation for additional validation and reliability of the MBQ-C among older children or adolescent populations is warranted, as their screen time types and patterns may differ by age. We did not find a similar screen-time instrument with our questions of interest that had been validated in our age range, thus we accept this as a limitation of the study. Nonetheless, we believe these are important data to inform the field on screen usage in children prior to their transition to adolescence. Additionally, “sedentary” and “standing” screen time indicate parent-reported screen use in typically seated or standing contexts rather than objectively measured postures. Therefore, caution is needed when interpreting the results. The observed differences in screen time have relatively small to moderate effect sizes. The practical and public health relevance of these observed patterns should be interpreted with caution. While these differences were relatively small to moderate, these differences bear important implications as the baseline screen time exposure is high. The findings from this study shed light on future efforts devoted to mitigating screen time. Parents and children are recommended to purposely monitor and curb the amount of passive screen time especially on weekdays among OWOB children. Prior work shows that weekday screen behaviors are more responsive to parental regulation [ 42 ], and our results similarly indicate that weekday passive screen time is a meaningful target for intervention, especially because weight-status-based differences were most prominent during weekdays. Consistent with studies demonstrating that parental monitoring and limit-setting reduce excessive or problematic screen use [ 43 ], parents may play a key role in shaping healthier weekday routines. Given the greater amount of passive screen time among children with OWOB, these children should be prompted to take frequent breaks from prolonged passive screen time and replace them with physical activity both indoor and outdoor. Parents should provide interventions to establish family rules, goals, and routines to limit excessive screen time. Increasing the proportion of parents who follow the American Academy of Pediatrics recommendations on limiting screen time for children aged 6–17 years is a high priority issue within the Healthy People 2030 objectives, indicating significant public health implications [ 44 ]. Furthermore, future studies should also consider incorporating detailed assessments of children’s participation in organized and non-organized sports to examine how these behaviors interact with sex, age, and socioeconomic status in shaping screen-time patterns. Understanding these behavioral and demographic interactions may offer a more comprehensive explanation of variability in screen-time engagement. Conclusions In summary, this study found that screen time distribution was higher among children with OWOB compared to their NW counterpart in a socioeconomically disadvantaged child population, although both groups exhibited excessive amount of screen time daily. Particularly, weekday passive screen time showed the largest difference, suggesting the added urgency for mitigating passive screen time during weekdays among children with OWOB in future interventions. Our study highlighted the importance of considering children’s engagement types, parent-reported posture-related categories, and timing of their screen time behaviors distribution that is not possible to capture with a uniform screen-time measure. Future research and practice focused on the conceptualization, measurement, and intervention of children’s screen time should consider these dimensions to reflect a comprehensive scope of differential screen time patterns. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the participating schools and Medicaid regional offices, and parent participants for their assistance, support, or data contribution. Disclaimer: The content presented in this paper is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the sponsors. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Data Availability The dataset presented in this article are not readily available unless a data-sharing agreement is established between the research team and the request individuals or party, upon the Louisiana State University IRB’s review and approval due to the ethical restrictions with the vulnerable Medicaid population involved in the research. Requests to access the dataset should be directed to Louisiana State University Institutional Review Board ( [email protected] ). Funding Statement This study was supported by the Public University Partnership Program at the Louisiana Department of Health, Bureau of Health Services Financing (LDH-PUPPAM230210), Louisiana State University Provost’s Fund, and Louisiana State University Foundation/Our Lady of the Lake Health. Dr. Staiano and Dr. Hu were partially supported by grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P30DK072476) and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (U54GM104940). References 1. Halfon N, Larson K, Lu M, Tullis E, Russ S. Lifecourse health development: past, present and future. Matern Child Health J. 2014;18(2):344–65. doi: 10.1007/s10995-013-1346-2 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 2. Simmonds M, Llewellyn A, Owen CG, Woolacott N. Predicting adult obesity from childhood obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev. 2016;17(2):95–107. doi: 10.1111/obr.12334 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Childhood Obesity Facts. 2024 [cited 2026 Jan 28]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood-obesity-facts/childhood-obesity-facts.html 4. Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Kit BK, Flegal KM. Prevalence of childhood and adult obesity in the United States, 2011-2012. JAMA. 2014;311(8):806–14. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 5. Nagata JM, Smith N, Alsamman S, Lee CM, Dooley EE, Kiss O, et al. Association of Physical Activity and Screen Time With Body Mass Index Among US Adolescents. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(2):e2255466. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.55466 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 6. Robinson TN, Banda JA, Hale L, Lu AS, Fleming-Milici F, Calvert SL, et al. Screen Media Exposure and Obesity in Children and Adolescents. Pediatrics. 2017;140(Suppl 2):S97–101. doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-1758K [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 7. Zink J, Booker R, Wolff-Hughes DL, Allen NB, Carnethon MR, Alexandria SJ, et al. Longitudinal associations of screen time, physical activity, and sleep duration with body mass index in U.S. youth. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2024;21(1):35. doi: 10.1186/s12966-024-01587-6 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 8. Laurson KR, Eisenmann JC, Welk GJ, Wickel EE, Gentile DA, Walsh DA. Combined influence of physical activity and screen time recommendations on childhood overweight. J Pediatr. 2008;153(2):209–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2008.02.042 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 9. Owen N, Sugiyama T, Eakin EE, Gardiner PA, Tremblay MS, Sallis JF. Adults’ sedentary behavior determinants and interventions. Am J Prev Med. 2011;41(2):189–96. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.05.013 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 10. Haghjoo P, Siri G, Soleimani E, Farhangi MA, Alesaeidi S. Screen time increases overweight and obesity risk among adolescents: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis. BMC Prim Care. 2022;23(1):161. doi: 10.1186/s12875-022-01761-4 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 11. Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology. Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Children and Youth Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology. 2021 [cited 2026 Jan 28]. Available from: https://csepguidelines.ca/guidelines/children-youth/ 12. Bull FC, Al-Ansari SS, Biddle S, Borodulin K, Buman MP, Cardon G, et al. World Health Organization 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54(24):1451–62. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-102955 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 13. Okely AD, Ghersi D, Loughran SP, Cliff DP, Shilton T, Jones RA. A collaborative approach to adopting/adapting guidelines. The Australian 24-hour movement guidelines for children (5-12 years) and young people (13-17 years): An integration of physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and sleep. Int J Behav Nutrit Phys Activ. 2022;19(1):2. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 14. American College of Pediatricians. Media Use and Screen Time: Its Impact on Children, Adolescents, and Families: American College of Pediatricians. 2025 [cited 2026 Jan 28] Available from: https://acpeds.org/media-use-and-screen-time-its-impact-on-children-adolescents-and-families/ 15. Friel CP, Duran AT, Shechter A, Diaz KM. U.S. Children Meeting Physical Activity, Screen Time, and Sleep Guidelines. Am J Prev Med. 2020;59(4):513–21. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2020.05.007 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 16. Sisson S, Church T, Martin C, Tudor-Locke C, Smith S, Bouchard C, et al. Profiles of sedentary behavior in children and adolescents: The US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2001–2006. Int J Pediatr Obes. 2009;4:353–9. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 17. Mokari-Yamchi A, Brazendale K, Faghfouri AH, Mohammadpour Y, Gheibi S. Adherence to physical activity and screen time recommendations of youth: Demographic differences from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2017-2018. Obes Sci Pract. 2024;10(4):e776. doi: 10.1002/osp4.776 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 18. Bejarano G, Brayton RP, Ranjit N, Hoelscher DM, Brown D, Knell G. Weight status and meeting the physical activity, sleep, and screen-time guidelines among Texas children: results from a population based, cross-sectional analysis. BMC Pediatr. 2022;22(1):428. doi: 10.1186/s12887-022-03488-8 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 19. Drenowatz C, Eisenmann JC, Pfeiffer KA, Welk G, Heelan K, Gentile D, et al. Influence of socio-economic status on habitual physical activity and sedentary behavior in 8- to 11-year old children. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:214. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-214 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 20. K Kaye L, Orben A, A Ellis D, C Hunter S, Houghton S. The Conceptual and Methodological Mayhem of “Screen Time”. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(10):3661. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17103661 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 21. Brazendale K, Beets MW, Weaver RG, Pate RR, Turner-McGrievy GM, Kaczynski AT, et al. Understanding differences between summer vs. school obesogenic behaviors of children: the structured days hypothesis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017;14(1):100. doi: 10.1186/s12966-017-0555-2 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 22. Tassitano RM, Weaver RG, Tenório MCM, Brazendale K, Beets MW. Physical activity and sedentary time of youth in structured settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020;17(1):160. doi: 10.1186/s12966-020-01054-y [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 23. Weaver RG, Armstrong B, Hunt E, Beets MW, Brazendale K, Dugger R, et al. The impact of summer vacation on children’s obesogenic behaviors and body mass index: a natural experiment. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020;17(1):153. doi: 10.1186/s12966-020-01052-0 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 24. Byrne R, Terranova CO, Chai LK, Brookes DSK, Trost SG. Cognitive Testing of Items Measuring Movement Behaviours in Young Children Aged Zero to Five Years: Development of the Movement Behaviour Questionnaires for -Baby (MBQ-B) and -Child (MBQ-C). Children (Basel). 2023;10(9):1554. doi: 10.3390/children10091554 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 25. Trost SG, Terranova CO, Brookes DSK, Chai LK, Byrne RA. Reliability and validity of rapid assessment tools for measuring 24-hour movement behaviours in children aged 0-5 years: the Movement Behaviour Questionnaire Baby (MBQ-B) and child (MBQ-C). Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2024;21(1):43. doi: 10.1186/s12966-024-01596-5 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 26. Anderson SE, Economos CD, Must A. Active play and screen time in US children aged 4 to 11 years in relation to sociodemographic and weight status characteristics: a nationally representative cross-sectional analysis. BMC Public Health. 2008;8:366. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-366 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 27. Nagata JM, Ganson KT, Iyer P, Chu J, Baker FC, Pettee Gabriel K, et al. Sociodemographic Correlates of Contemporary Screen Time Use among 9- and 10-Year-Old Children. J Pediatr. 2022;240:213-220.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2021.08.077 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 28. Kollar M, Scherer Z. Income in the United States: 2024. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2025. [cited 2026 Jan 28]. Available from: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2025/demo/p60-286.html [ Google Scholar ] 29. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Child and teen BMI categories: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. 2024 [cited 2026 Jan 28]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/bmi/child-teen-calculator/bmi-categories.html 30. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. R Programs for Various Growth Charts: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. 2024 [cited 2026 Jan 28]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/growth-chart-training/hcp/computer-programs/r-programs.html 31. Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, Elliott V, Fernandez M, O’Neal L, et al. The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95:103208. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 32. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 33. Massara P, Asrar A, Bourdon C, Ngari M, Keown-Stoneman CDG, Maguire JL, et al. New approaches and technical considerations in detecting outlier measurements and trajectories in longitudinal children growth data. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023;23(1):232. doi: 10.1186/s12874-023-02045-w [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 34. Freedman DS, Lawman HG, Skinner AC, McGuire LC, Allison DB, Ogden CL. Validity of the WHO cutoffs for biologically implausible values of weight, height, and BMI in children and adolescents in NHANES from 1999 through 2012. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;102(5):1000–6. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.115.115576 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 35. Andersen RE, Crespo CJ, Bartlett SJ, Cheskin LJ, Pratt M. Relationship of physical activity and television watching with body weight and level of fatness among children: results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. JAMA. 1998;279(12):938–42. doi: 10.1001/jama.279.12.938 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 36. Myszkowska-Ryciak J, Hamulka J, Czarniecka-Skubina E, Gębski J, Chmurzynska A, Gutkowska K. Screen Time as a Determinant of Chosen Aspects of Lifestyle: A Cross-Sectional Study of 10- to 12-Year-Old Schoolchildren in Poland. Nutrients. 2025;17(17):2891. doi: 10.3390/nu17172891 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 37. Zosel K, Monroe C, Hunt E, Laflamme C, Brazendale K, Weaver RG. Examining adolescents’ obesogenic behaviors on structured days: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Obes (Lond). 2022;46(3):466–75. doi: 10.1038/s41366-021-01040-9 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 38. Wilkie HJ, Standage M, Gillison FB, Cumming SP, Katzmarzyk PT. The home electronic media environment and parental safety concerns: relationships with outdoor time after school and over the weekend among 9–11 year old children. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):456. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 39. Thornton CM, Cain KL, Conway TL, Kerr J, Saelens BE, Frank LD, et al. Relation of Adolescents’ Physical Activity to After-School Recreation Environment. J Phys Act Health. 2017;14(5):382–8. doi: 10.1123/jpah.2016-0365 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 40. Hunter S, Carson V, Timperio A, Salmon J, Carver A, Veitch J. Moderators of Parents’ Perceptions of the Neighborhood Environment and Children’s Physical Activity, Time Outside, and Screen Time. J Phys Act Health. 2020;17(5):557–65. doi: 10.1123/jpah.2019-0433 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 41. Chaput J-P, Willumsen J, Bull F, Chou R, Ekelund U, Firth J, et al. 2020 WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour for children and adolescents aged 5-17 years: summary of the evidence. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020;17(1):141. doi: 10.1186/s12966-020-01037-z [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 42. Bergh IH, van Stralen MM, Bjelland M, Grydeland M, Lien N, Klepp K-I, et al. Post-intervention effects on screen behaviours and mediating effect of parental regulation: the HEalth In Adolescents study--a multi-component school-based randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2014;14:200. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-200 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 43. Nagata JM, Paul A, Yen F, Smith-Russack Z, Shao IY, Al-Shoaibi AAA, et al. Associations between media parenting practices and early adolescent screen use. Pediatr Res. 2025;97(1):403–10. doi: 10.1038/s41390-024-03243-y [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 44. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Increase the proportion of parents who follow AAP recommendations on limiting screen time for children aged 6 to 17 years (PA-R02). 2026 [cited 2026 Jan 28]. Available from: https://odphp.health.gov/healthypeople/objectives-and-data/browse-objectives/physical-activity/increase-proportion-parents-who-follow-aap-recommendations-limiting-screen-time-children-aged-6-17-years-pa-r02 PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0346235.r001 Decision Letter 0 Rajendra Prasad Parajuli Rajendra Prasad Parajuli Academic Editor Find articles by Rajendra Prasad Parajuli Author information Copyright and License information Roles Rajendra Prasad Parajuli : Academic Editor © 2026 Rajendra Prasad Parajuli This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. PMC Copyright notice 12 Jan 2026 PONE-D-25-63306Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Children's Screen Time Behaviors by Weight StatusPLOS One Dear Dr. Chen, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 26 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at [email protected] . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols . We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Rajendra Prasad Parajuli, PhD Academic Editor PLOS One Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. 3. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions . Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories . You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible. Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly. 4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods ( https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition ). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories . If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 5. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: This study was supported by the Public University Partnership Program at the Louisiana Department of Health, Bureau of Health Services Financing (LDH-PUPP- AM230210 ), Louisiana State University Provost’s Fund, Louisiana State University Foundation/Our Lady of the Lake Health. Dr. Staiano and Hu were partially supported by the grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK141453), the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (U54GM104940). Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No ********** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ********** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This manuscript examines differences in screen-time behaviors by weight status in a socioeconomically disadvantaged pediatric population. The topic is relevant, the sample size is adequate, and the use of a multidimensional screen-time instrument is a strength. The analyses are generally appropriate; however, several issues require clarification or revision before the manuscript can be considered for publication. First, causal or directional language should be revised throughout the manuscript, as the cross-sectional design only allows for assessment of associations. Second, the Data Availability Statement does not clearly comply with PLOS ONE policy. The manuscript alternately states that data are available within the manuscript and that datasets require an IRB-approved data-sharing agreement. This inconsistency must be resolved. Third, although multiple statistically significant findings are reported, many effect sizes are small. The authors should more clearly discuss the practical or public-health relevance of these differences. Fourth, parts of the discussion and conclusions place emphasis on weekend screen time, despite results indicating that the largest weight-status differences occur for weekday passive screen time. The interpretation and recommendations should be more closely aligned with the results. Finally, minor editorial issues (typographical errors and repetitive phrasing) should be corrected. Overall, the study addresses an important question, but the issues noted above should be addressed to improve clarity, transparency, and interpretability. Reviewer #2: This manuscript as a novel approach examines multidimensional screen time behaviors among children with overweight/obesity (OWOB) compared to their normal-weight peers in a socioeconomically disadvantaged population. So, congratulations to the research team for taking a good initiative study and overall, the study addresses an important and relevant public health issue making meaningful contribution to the literature by moving beyond total screen time to examine engagement type, posture, and weekday versus weekend patterns. With these, I have few broad queries and suggestions as part of preliminary screening and I hope the research team will address it adequately. 1. Please clarify throughout the discussion and conclusion that the findings represent associations only, given the cross-sectional study design, and avoid any language that may imply causality. 2. Write a few lines about the potential impact of parent-reported screen time and anthropometric data, particularly the possibility of differential reporting, and how this may influence the results. 3. In the findings section, clarify the interpretation of the non-significant moderation effects by demographic variables, including whether limited variability within the sample or statistical power may have contributed to these findings. 4. In findings and discussion section, please clarify the interpretation of the relatively smaller differences in screen time observed on weekends and discuss whether uniformly high weekend screen use across groups may have attenuated between-group differences. 5. In data availability statement, clarify what types of de-identified or aggregated data and/or analytic code may be available upon reasonable request. 6. As part of public health implications, please clarify how the findings particularly the role of weekday passive screen time can inform targeted intervention strategies. Thank you! Feel free to write back for clarity if confusion arises. Reviewer #3: Overall comments: This cross-sectional online survey study reports differences in standing vs active screentime in OW and HW children from a predominantly lower income population. The results show that OW children engaged in more screentime and less active media time and overall have more screentime than HW children. As reported, the results are not new, although the use of a novel questionnaire provides additional nuance to the relationship between screentime and weight status. The authors do a good job excluding potentially problematic data and correctly note study limitations. However, there was no attention to the time of year (summer vs. school) that parents completed the survey, which seems to be an important factor given the Structured Day Hypothesis that the study was based on. This and some additional considerations are below. Introduction: The introduction was well-written, clearly pointed out the gap in knowledge, and was theoretically based. However, I do have some suggestions about the title of the paper and use of the term “socioeconomically disadvantaged” – The paper is primarily about the association between weight status and movement behaviors in a population that is predominantly, but not entirely socioeconomically disadvantaged. In fact, 27.4% of the families are categorized as high income (above the median income). I think the title overemphasizes the demographic characteristics and is not informative enough about the weight status differences (which were the primary finding). Methods: 1. What was the justification for the age range used in the study? What age range has the Movement Behavior Questionnaire been previously used in? 2. It’s unclear why the question about “looking at photos” was included as part of the interactive screentime as this seems like a passive behavior. Can the authors justify this? 3. Lines 130-135 – how were parents provided with instructions or definitions for each of these categories? 4. How was the sample size determined? Was any power analysis performed? 5. It is unclear from the sampling procedures if the time of year the survey was completed was corrected for in statistical analysis, or if only school time assessments were analyzed. According to the Structured Day Hypothesis, children’s screentime would vary depending on the time of year. Results: 1. The authors report that ~25% of children met daily screentime requirements, but it’s unclear what recommendations were used for assessing daily screentime. Can this be added? Can the authors cite the specific guidelines that were used here? 2. Line 202 – the authors report on the number of minutes children were engaged in media in the “sedentary posture” however, they did not actually assess children’s physical activity while they were watching media. The assumption is that children were sedentary while engaged in certain types of media, but we cannot verify this assumption. For this reason, the language on how media engagement is described should be tempered accordingly. The same can also be said about “standing” screentime. As activity was not objectively assessed, it’s unclear how parents reported minutes activities that were primary standing vs sedentary. 3. The authors reported no associations between demographic characteristics and movement / screentime, but I’m wondering if they looked at potential interactions between sex and age? For example, do weekend / weekday differences in weight related differences become more robust as children get older and drop out of sporting activities? Is this relationship exacerbated in girls relative to boys? These additional analyses may off the paper additional insight beyond what is largely already known (i.e., OW/OB demonstrate higher sedentary time and greater screen time). Discussion: There is no attention in the discussion to the potential effects that involvement in team sports and its associations with sex, age, and SES might have on the reported results. ********** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy . Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes: Kathleen L. Keller ********** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation . NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications. PLoS One. 2026 Apr 17;21(4):e0346235. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0346235.r002 Author response to Decision Letter 1 Article notes Copyright and License information Collection date 2026. PMC Copyright notice 12 Feb 2026 Our point by point responses to the comments are attached and should be available within the overall PDF file. Thank you! Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx pone.0346235.s002.docx (45.7KB, docx) PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0346235.r003 Decision Letter 1 Rajendra Prasad Parajuli Rajendra Prasad Parajuli Academic Editor Find articles by Rajendra Prasad Parajuli Author information Copyright and License information Roles Rajendra Prasad Parajuli : Academic Editor © 2026 Rajendra Prasad Parajuli This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. PMC Copyright notice 17 Mar 2026 Variations in Children's Screen Time Behaviors by Weight Status among a Mostly Disadvantaged Population PONE-D-25-63306R1 Dear Dr. Chen, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support . If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Kind regards, Rajendra Prasad Parajuli, PhD Academic Editor PLOS One ------------------------------------- Additional Editor Comments (optional): Some typological issues remains: For Example, starting sentense with digit is not common practice, I asked authors to check few issues like.. disadvantaged population. 739 parent proxies of children aged -->Seven Hundred Thirty nine... The findings are discussed below....May be not needed.. Give a Diligent Read --------------------------- Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ********** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ********** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: No significant comments.It is a very well written and statistically strong article.I wish the author all the best. Reviewer #2: (No Response) ********** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy . Reviewer #1: Yes: Anjali Parajuli Reviewer #2: No ********** PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0346235.r004 Acceptance letter Rajendra Prasad Parajuli Rajendra Prasad Parajuli Academic Editor Find articles by Rajendra Prasad Parajuli Author information Copyright and License information Roles Rajendra Prasad Parajuli : Academic Editor © 2026 Rajendra Prasad Parajuli This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. PMC Copyright notice PONE-D-25-63306R1 PLOS One Dear Dr. Chen, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact [email protected]. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing . If we can help with anything else, please email us at [email protected]. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Rajendra Prasad Parajuli Academic Editor PLOS One Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Supplementary Materials Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx pone.0346235.s002.docx (45.7KB, docx) Data Availability Statement The dataset presented in this article are not readily available unless a data-sharing agreement is established between the research team and the request individuals or party, upon the Louisiana State University IRB’s review and approval due to the ethical restrictions with the vulnerable Medicaid population involved in the research. Requests to access the dataset should be directed to Louisiana State University Institutional Review Board ( [email protected] ). Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (510.3 KB) Cite Collections Permalink PERMALINK Copy RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Cite Copy Download .nbib .nbib Format: AMA APA MLA NLM Add to Collections Create a new collection Add to an existing collection Name your collection * Choose a collection Unable to load your collection due to an error Please try again Add Cancel Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top