In 2017, the Australian Government funded the update of the National Physical Activity Recommendations for Children 0–5 years, with the intention that they be an integration of movement behaviours across the 24-h period. The benefit for Australia was that it could leverage research in Canada in the development of their 24-h guidelines for the early years. Concurrently, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group published a model to produce guidelines based on adoption, adaption and/or de novo development using the GRADE evidence-to-decision framework. Referred to as the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach, it allows guideline developers to follow a structured and transparent process in a more efficient manner, potentially avoiding the need to unnecessarily repeat costly tasks such as conducting systematic reviews. The purpose of this paper is to outline the process and outcomes for adapting the Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for the Early Years to develop the Australian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for the Early Years guided by the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT framework. The development process was guided by the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach. A Leadership Group and Consensus Panel were formed and existing credible guidelines identified. The draft Canadian 24-h integrated movement guidelines for the early years best met the criteria established by the Panel. These were evaluated based on the evidence in the GRADE tables, summaries of findings tables and draft recommendations from the Canadian Draft Guidelines. Updates to each of the Canadian systematic reviews were conducted and the Consensus Panel reviewed the evidence for each behaviour separately and made a decision to adopt or adapt the Canadian recommendations for each behaviour or create de novo recommendations. An online survey was then conducted (n = 302) along with five focus groups (n = 30) and five key informant interviews (n = 5) to obtain feedback from stakeholders on the draft guidelines. Based on the evidence from the Canadian systematic reviews and the updated systematic reviews in Australia, the Consensus Panel agreed to adopt the Canadian recommendations and, apart from some minor changes to the wording of good practice statements, keep the wording of the guidelines, preamble and title of the Canadian Guidelines. The Australian Guidelines provide evidence-informed recommendations for a healthy day (24-h), integrating physical activity, sedentary behaviour (including limits to screen time), and sleep for infants (<1 year), toddlers (1–2 years) and preschoolers (3–5 years). To our knowledge, this is only the second time the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach has been used. Following this approach, the judgments of the Australian Consensus Panel did not differ sufficiently to change the directions and strength of the recommendations and as such, the Canadian recommendations were adopted with very minor alterations. This allowed the Guidelines to be developed much faster and at lower cost. As such, we would recommend the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach, especially if a credible set of guidelines, with all supporting materials and developed using a transparent process, is available. Other countries may consider using this approach when developing and/or revising national movement guidelines.

Previous research has suggested that exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields increases electroencephalogram spectral power in non-rapid eye movement sleep. Other sleep parameters have also been affected following exposure. We examined whether aspects of sleep architecture show sensitivity to electromagnetic fields emitted by digital mobile phone handsets. Fifty participants were exposed to electromagnetic fields for 30 min prior to sleep. Results showed a decrease in rapid eye movement sleep latency and increased electroencephalogram spectral power in the 11.5–12.25 Hz frequency range during the initial part of sleep following exposure. These results are evidence that mobile phone exposure prior to sleep may promote rapid eye movement sleep and modify the sleep electroencephalogram in the first non-rapid eye movement sleep period.

Purpose: To test whether exposure to the emissions from a digital mobile phone handset prior to sleep alters the secretion of melatonin. Materials and methods: In a double-blind cross-over design, 55 adult volunteers were both actively exposed or sham-exposed (in random order on successive Sunday nights) to mobile phone emissions for 30 min (0.25 W average power). Urine collection occurred immediately prior to retiring to bed and on rising the next morning. Melatonin output was estimated from principal metabolite concentrations (6-sulphatoxymelatonin (aMT6s) via radioimmunoassay), urine volumes and creatinine concentrations. Results: Total melatonin metabolite output (concentration×urine volume) was unchanged between the two exposure conditions (active 14.1±1.1 μg; sham 14.6±1.3 μg). The pre- and post-bedtime outputs considered separately were also not significantly different, although the pre-bedtime value was less for active versus sham exposure. When melatonin metabolite output was estimated from the ratio of aMT6s to creatinine concentrations, the pre-bedtime value was significantly less (p = 0.037) for active compared to sham. Examination of individual responses is suggestive of a small group of ‘responders’. Conclusions: Total nighttime melatonin output is unchanged by mobile phone handset emissions, but there could be an effect on melatonin onset time.