Early Childhood Screen Use Contexts and Cognitive and Psychosocial Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IF 24.7 1区 医学 Q1 PEDIATRICS JAMA Pediatrics Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.2620
Sumudu Mallawaarachchi, Jade Burley, Myrto Mavilidi, Steven J Howard, Leon Straker, Lisa Kervin, Sally Staton, Nicole Hayes, Amanda Machell, Marina Torjinski, Brodie Brady, George Thomas, Sharon Horwood, Sonia L J White, Juliana Zabatiero, Clara Rivera, Dylan Cliff
{"title":"Early Childhood Screen Use Contexts and Cognitive and Psychosocial Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Sumudu Mallawaarachchi, Jade Burley, Myrto Mavilidi, Steven J Howard, Leon Straker, Lisa Kervin, Sally Staton, Nicole Hayes, Amanda Machell, Marina Torjinski, Brodie Brady, George Thomas, Sharon Horwood, Sonia L J White, Juliana Zabatiero, Clara Rivera, Dylan Cliff","doi":"10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.2620","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>The multifaceted nature of screen use has been largely overlooked in favor of a simplistic unidimensional measure of overall screen time when evaluating the benefits and risks of screen use to early childhood development.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine associations of screen use contexts in early childhood with cognitive and psychosocial outcomes.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>PsycINFO, Embase, MEDLINE Ovid, ProQuest, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from inception to December 31, 2023.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>A total of 7441 studies were initially identified. Studies were included if they examined associations between a contextual factor of screen use among children aged 0 to 5.99 years and cognitive or psychosocial development. Observational, experimental, and randomized clinical trial study designs were included.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>All studies were independently screened in duplicate following PRISMA guidelines. Effect sizes of associations (r) from observational studies were pooled using random-effects 3-level meta-analyses. The remaining study designs were narratively synthesized.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Screen use contexts included content (child directed and age inappropriate), type (program viewing and game or app use), co-use (or solo use), background television, caregiver screen use during child routines, and purpose. Outcomes were cognitive (executive functioning, language, and academic skills) or psychosocial (internalizing and externalizing behavior problems and socioemotional competence).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 100 studies (176 742 participants) were included, and of these, 64 observational studies (pooled sample sizes ranging from 711 to 69 232) were included in meta-analyses. Program viewing (n = 14; k = 48; r, -0.16; 95% CI, -0.24 to -0.08) and background television (n = 8; k = 18; r, -0.10; 95% CI, -0.18 to -0.02) were negatively associated with cognitive outcomes, while program viewing (n = 6; k = 31; r, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.07 to -0.01), age-inappropriate content (n = 9; k = 36; r, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.17 to -0.04), and caregiver screen use during routines (n = 6; k = 14; r, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.20 to -0.03) were negatively associated with psychosocial outcomes. Co-use was positively associated with cognitive outcomes (n = 8; k = 28; r, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.25).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>Findings show small to moderate effect sizes that highlight the need to consider screen use contexts when making recommendations for families, clinicians, and educators beyond screen time limits; including encouraging intentional and productive screen use, age-appropriate content, and co-use with caregivers.</p>","PeriodicalId":14683,"journal":{"name":"JAMA Pediatrics","volume":" ","pages":"1017-1026"},"PeriodicalIF":24.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.2620","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: The multifaceted nature of screen use has been largely overlooked in favor of a simplistic unidimensional measure of overall screen time when evaluating the benefits and risks of screen use to early childhood development.

Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine associations of screen use contexts in early childhood with cognitive and psychosocial outcomes.

Data sources: PsycINFO, Embase, MEDLINE Ovid, ProQuest, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from inception to December 31, 2023.

Study selection: A total of 7441 studies were initially identified. Studies were included if they examined associations between a contextual factor of screen use among children aged 0 to 5.99 years and cognitive or psychosocial development. Observational, experimental, and randomized clinical trial study designs were included.

Data extraction and synthesis: All studies were independently screened in duplicate following PRISMA guidelines. Effect sizes of associations (r) from observational studies were pooled using random-effects 3-level meta-analyses. The remaining study designs were narratively synthesized.

Main outcomes and measures: Screen use contexts included content (child directed and age inappropriate), type (program viewing and game or app use), co-use (or solo use), background television, caregiver screen use during child routines, and purpose. Outcomes were cognitive (executive functioning, language, and academic skills) or psychosocial (internalizing and externalizing behavior problems and socioemotional competence).

Results: Overall, 100 studies (176 742 participants) were included, and of these, 64 observational studies (pooled sample sizes ranging from 711 to 69 232) were included in meta-analyses. Program viewing (n = 14; k = 48; r, -0.16; 95% CI, -0.24 to -0.08) and background television (n = 8; k = 18; r, -0.10; 95% CI, -0.18 to -0.02) were negatively associated with cognitive outcomes, while program viewing (n = 6; k = 31; r, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.07 to -0.01), age-inappropriate content (n = 9; k = 36; r, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.17 to -0.04), and caregiver screen use during routines (n = 6; k = 14; r, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.20 to -0.03) were negatively associated with psychosocial outcomes. Co-use was positively associated with cognitive outcomes (n = 8; k = 28; r, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.25).

Conclusions and relevance: Findings show small to moderate effect sizes that highlight the need to consider screen use contexts when making recommendations for families, clinicians, and educators beyond screen time limits; including encouraging intentional and productive screen use, age-appropriate content, and co-use with caregivers.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
儿童早期屏幕使用环境与认知和社会心理结果:系统回顾与元分析》。
重要性:在评估屏幕使用对儿童早期发展的益处和风险时,屏幕使用的多面性在很大程度上被忽视了,而只是简单地从单一维度衡量总体屏幕使用时间:进行系统回顾和荟萃分析,研究儿童早期使用屏幕的情况与认知和社会心理结果之间的关联:数据来源:检索了从开始到 2023 年 12 月 31 日的 PsycINFO、Embase、MEDLINE Ovid、ProQuest、CINAHL、Web of Science 和 Scopus:最初共确定了 7441 项研究。只要研究了 0 至 5.99 岁儿童使用屏幕的环境因素与认知或社会心理发展之间的关系,均被纳入研究范围。数据提取和综合:所有研究均按照 PRISMA 指南进行了独立的重复筛选。观察性研究的关联效应大小(r)采用随机效应三级荟萃分析法进行汇总。对其余研究设计进行了叙述性综合:屏幕使用情境包括内容(针对儿童和与年龄不符)、类型(观看节目和使用游戏或应用程序)、共同使用(或单独使用)、背景电视、照顾者在儿童例行活动中使用屏幕以及目的。研究结果包括认知(执行功能、语言和学习技能)或社会心理(内化和外化行为问题以及社会情感能力):共有 100 项研究(176 742 名参与者)被纳入荟萃分析,其中 64 项观察性研究(汇总样本量从 711 到 69 232 不等)被纳入荟萃分析。节目观看(n = 14;k = 48;r,-0.16;95% CI,-0.24 至 -0.08)和背景电视(n = 8;k = 18;r,-0.10;95% CI,-0.18 至 -0.02)与认知结果呈负相关,而节目观看(n = 6;k = 31;r,-0.04; 95% CI, -0.07 to -0.01)、与年龄不符的内容(n = 9; k = 36; r, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.17 to -0.04)以及照顾者在例行活动中使用屏幕(n = 6; k = 14; r, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.20 to -0.03)与心理社会结果呈负相关。共同使用与认知结果呈正相关(n = 8;k = 28;r,0.14;95% CI,0.03 至 0.25):研究结果显示了小到中等的效应大小,突出表明在向家庭、临床医生和教育工作者提出屏幕使用时间限制以外的建议时,需要考虑屏幕使用的背景;包括鼓励有意和有效地使用屏幕、适合年龄的内容以及与照顾者共同使用屏幕。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
JAMA Pediatrics
JAMA Pediatrics PEDIATRICS-
CiteScore
31.60
自引率
1.90%
发文量
357
期刊介绍: JAMA Pediatrics, the oldest continuously published pediatric journal in the US since 1911, is an international peer-reviewed publication and a part of the JAMA Network. Published weekly online and in 12 issues annually, it garners over 8.4 million article views and downloads yearly. All research articles become freely accessible online after 12 months without any author fees, and through the WHO's HINARI program, the online version is accessible to institutions in developing countries. With a focus on advancing the health of infants, children, and adolescents, JAMA Pediatrics serves as a platform for discussing crucial issues and policies in child and adolescent health care. Leveraging the latest technology, it ensures timely access to information for its readers worldwide.
期刊最新文献
Systemic Postnatal Corticosteroids, Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia, and Survival Free of Cerebral Palsy. When Science and Politics Are Mixed. When Science and Politics Are Mixed-Reply. Systemic Corticosteroids to Prevent Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia: Balancing Risk and Reward. Symptom Screening for Hospitalized Pediatric Patients With Cancer
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1