Tag Archives: youth

CAN YOU PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION ON THE RECOMMENDED DAILY SCREEN TIME LIMITS FOR YOUTH

Leave a reply

Pediatric experts and health organizations generally recommend setting reasonable limits on daily recreational screen time for children and adolescents. Excessive screen use has been linked to various health issues in youth, while moderate use does not seem to be as concerning. Setting limits can help balance screen time with other important activities for growth and development.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) publishes guidelines on recommended daily screen time limits. For children ages 2 to 5 years old, the AAP recommends limiting screen use to just 1 hour per day of high-quality programming. This recommendation is meant to allow young children ample time to engage in creative, unstructured, and social play which is critically important at those early developmental stages. For children ages 6 and older, the AAP suggests limiting recreational screen time to no more than 2 hours per day. More lenient limits may be reasonable depending on the individual child and family situation, but going beyond 2 hours daily is not recommended on average.

The rationale behind the AAP’s limits involves concerns that excessive daily screen time can interfere with adequate sleep, physical activity, and other behaviors critical for health. Screen time has been linked to an increased risk of obesity, poor school performance, behavioral issues, and reduced physical, social, and emotional development in children when it displaces other healthy activities. The AAP acknowledges that moderate use of high-quality and engagement educational screen media may offer some developmental benefits when it does not take the place of real-world interaction, exploration, exercise and play.

Other major health organizations share similar views to the AAP. Canada’s 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Children and Youth recommend limiting recreational screen time to just 1 hour per day for those 5 years and younger, and to no more than 2 hours per day aged 6 to 17 years. Public Health England also advises limiting recreational screen use to 2 hours or less daily for children and teenagers. The World Health Organization states that under 2 years of age, screen time (apart from video chatting) is not recommended at all, and for children ages 2 to 4, screen time should be no more than 1 hour – and less is better. For ages 5 to 17, the WHO suggests limiting screen time to 2 hours at most, with higher amounts proving detrimental to health, cognition, emotional and social development.

The scientific evidence behind the 2-hour daily limit for older children and adolescents involves multiple long-term studies. Research has consistently found correlations between excessive recreational screen time above 2 hours daily and increased risk of obesity, poorer diets, less physical fitness, worse sleep, lower academic achievement, greater social isolation, higher rates of depression and anxiety, and internet addiction issues. Studies also show that moderate viewing of 2 hours or less does not appear to negatively impact health or development compared to less screen time, indicating this is a reasonable daily upper limit for most youth.

Of course, not all screen time is equal in terms of effects on health and development. Educational and prosocial screen content that actively engages youth has been shown to potentially provide cognitive benefits when not overdone. Interacting online socially has also become developmentally important as technology progresses. The daily limits focus only on recreational screen time engaged in passively for entertainment like TV watching, social media scrolling, casual gaming and video app/streaming use. Schoolwork, homework, physical activity videos, educational apps and programming, video chatting with family and friends, and creative activities done with technology usually do not count towards recreational limits in recommendations.

Balancing screen guidelines with individual family needs requires adjustments. Some exceptions to the AAP’s overall limits are reasonable depending on a child’s temperament, natural activity levels, caregiver guidelines and household structure. For example, a very active child who only occasionally exceeds 2 hours on weekends may be fine, while an inactive child routinely surpassing 1-2 hours daily would be concerning and could use tighter limits. Caregivers knowing each child’s habits, skills and needs are in the best position to set customized limits flexibly within reason of what major health authorities advise for overall development. The guidelines are also meant to be adjusted as children age to reflect changing developmental stages.

The recommended daily limits on recreational screen time for children, tweens and teens aim to encourage healthy lifestyle habits, focus on behaviors key to growth, optimize brain development, and reduce health risks from overuse of digital devices and media. While moderate, quality use may offer benefits, exceeding the guidelines’ 1-2 hours for age groups has been consistently linked to issues due to screen time displacement of essential childhood activities. Caregivers can best apply the evidence-based limits flexibly based on each youth’s specific situation to promote well-being. The recommendations seek to promote balance with technology for healthy development in an increasingly digital world.

WHAT ARE SOME POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF STUDYING THE IMPACT OF POLITICAL PARTY BRANDING ON YOUTH ENGAGEMENT

Leave a reply

Studying the impact of political party branding on youth engagement could provide valuable insights with important benefits. Engaging youth in the political process is crucial for the health of a democratic system long-term, yet youth voter turnout continues to lag behind other age groups in most countries. Understanding how political parties present themselves and their brand to younger generations may help identify opportunities to better connect with this segment of the population.

One potential benefit is that research could reveal which branding strategies and communication styles are most effective at attracting and holding the interest of youth. Modern political branding often borrows techniques from commercial marketing, yet applying these strategies to political parties is complex with many variables. Studying real-world examples from different countries may uncover branding approaches that resonate well with younger citizens. Factors like a party’s stance on issues of interest to youth, use of social media, creativity/originality in messaging, and incorporation of younger voices into the brand could all impact perception.

Research may also provide data to assess if, and how, youth political preferences and identification are shaped by early exposure to party brands. Prior studies have shown formative political socialization often begins in adolescence, yet branding may play an underappreciated role. Understanding any influence could benefit parties seeking to cultivate long-term loyal supporters. It may also caution about unintended consequences, such as “turn-off” effects from poor branding. Proper awareness could foster the development of youth engagement strategies that are positive, informative and encourage civic participation.

Another benefit is that research findings could help parties better communicate their relevance to young people. Successfully conveying a brand’s meaning, values and vision for the future in a way that resonates with youth priorities may increase perception of relevance. Stronger perceived relevance to their lives and concerns is linked to greater youth interest in politics. Drawing more engaged youth into the political process as informed and active citizens serves democratic principles of widespread participation and representation.

The results may also uncover opportunities for cooperation between parties and civil society groups regarding youth civic education and outreach programs. By identifying branding approaches associated with higher rates of youth voter turnout or volunteerism, for example, partnerships could be forged to promote these strategies. Collaborations informed by research have potential to be crafted wisely and avoid perceptions of unwanted influence or partisanship in education settings.

Studying political party branding effects may also offer some understanding of how non-traditional participation, like youth activism, interacts with conventional politics. As social movements increasingly utilize branding tactics, there may be spill-over onto perceptions of establishment parties. The cross-section between activism, civic engagement and partisan politics is complex with consequences not fully known. Research illuminating these relationships could benefit efforts to maintain healthy democratic competition between groups.

Thorough analysis of political party branding impacts has potential to generate knowledge that strengthens youth civic education and youth voter participation. With the goal of more inclusive and representative democracy that better engages future generations, harnessing research findings seems prudent. Deeper comprehension of the branding role could help optimize youth outreach for positive ends, rather than potential for manipulation. Though challenges remain, benefits warrant serious consideration of supporting such worthwhile study.

Researching political party branding effects on youth holds promise for generating understanding to guide practices that build stronger, long-lasting youth connections to democratic processes. Numerous potential benefits relate to informing party strategies, communication relevance, cooperation on civic goals and insight into activism intersections. While open questions remain, opportunities to use knowledge to improve civic health and participation deserve exploration.

WHAT ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICES FOR DEVELOPING MULTI LEVEL INTERVENTIONS FOR AT RISK YOUTH

Leave a reply

There are several evidence-based practices that have been shown to be effective for developing multi-level interventions for at-risk youth. Multi-level interventions are important because they address risk and protective factors at different levels, including the individual, family, school, peer, and community levels. Addressing risk factors at multiple levels simultaneously is thought to have a stronger impact on preventing maladaptive outcomes compared to single-level interventions.

One approach that has shown success is multi-systemic therapy (MST). MST aims to promote behavioral change in the youth’s natural environment using a collaborative, team-based approach. MST therapists work with the family and other systems in the youth’s life, such as school, peers, and neighborhood. Therapists provide interventions that empower caretakers with the skills and resources needed to deal effectively with the behavioral problems. MST focuses on addressing influences on antisocial behavior within the youth’s social networks and developing coping strategies. Randomized controlled trials have found MST to be effective at reducing antisocial behavior, substance use, and out-of-home placements compared to usual care.

Another evidence-based multi-level intervention is the Communities That Care (CTC) prevention system. The CTC system involves assessing community risk and protective factors, building collaboration between community members and organizations, and implementing programs and strategies that target modifiable risk factors. Community coalitions develop plans to implement programs across the different levels, such as parent training, social development strategies in schools, and policies in local government/law enforcement. Longitudinal studies have found that communities using the CTC system demonstrate reductions in rates of substance abuse, delinquency, and other problem behaviors compared to control communities.

At the school-level, positive behavior intervention and support (PBIS) is an evidence-based framework for preventing problem behaviors. PBIS involves teaching prosocial expectations across all school settings, using a system of positive reinforcement, and intervening early for students not responding to Tier 1 supports. School staff are trained to define, teach, model, and reinforce appropriate student behaviors. The universal supports are supplemented with more intensive, individualized supports (Tier 2 and 3) for students needing extra help. Numerous studies show PBIS is associated with reductions in office discipline referrals, suspensions, improvements in academic achievement and school climate over time.

Targeting protective factors through mentoring programs is another effective multi-level intervention for youth. Community-based mentoring matches at-risk youth with caring, supportive adults in their communities. High-quality programs provide ongoing training to mentors, structured activities for mentor-mentee matched, and aim to establish long-lasting relationships. Research indicates community-based mentoring programs can improve outcomes such as academic achievement and performance, self-esteem, social competencies and relationships, as well as decrease rates of risky behaviors like violence, substance use and skipping school.

Family-focused interventions are also important as part of multi-level programs. Parent management training aims to teach parents positive reinforcement techniques, effective discipline strategies, and how to help their child develop important social and emotional skills. Improving parenting skills and the parent-child relationship strengthens a protective factor. Multisystemic family therapy similarly addresses risk factors in youth and their families by changing family dynamics and empowering caretakers. Outcome studies demonstrate reduced antisocial behavior, criminal activity, and mental health issues through family-focused interventions.

Developing multi-level interventions by implementing evidence-based programs across individual, family, school, peer and community domains is an effective approach for at-risk youth populations. Addressing multiple risk and protective factors simultaneously through collaborative, team-based strategies has been shown to produce stronger effects than single-level programs alone. Programs should be matched to the specific needs of the population through an assessment process and involve stakeholder engagement at all levels for sustainability.