Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35311672›Full record

ArticleJMIR pediatrics and parenting2022

Using Wearable Cameras to Categorize the Type and Context of Screen-Based Behaviors Among Adolescents: Observational Study.

George Thomas, Jason A Bennie, Katrien De Cocker, Fitria Dwi Andriyani, Bridget Booker, Stuart J H Biddle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR pediatrics and parenting, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

George Thomas *School of Allied Health, Curtin University, Bentley, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6908-7974
Jason A Bennie *Centre for Health Research, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield Central, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8668-8998
Katrien De Cocker *Centre for Health Research, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield Central, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7510-4419
Fitria Dwi Andriyani *Centre for Health Research, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield Central, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2640-1086
Bridget Booker *Institute for Positive Psychology and Education, Australian Catholic University, North Sydney, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8815-7314
Stuart J H Biddle *Centre for Health Research, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield Central, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7663-6895

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAutomated wearable cameras present a new opportunity to accurately assess human behavior. However, this technology is seldom used in the study of adolescent's screen exposure, and the field is reliant on poor-quality self-report data.

objectiveThis study aimed to examine adolescents' screen exposure by categorizing the type and context of behaviors using automated wearable cameras.

methodsAdolescents (mean age 15.4 years, SD 1.6 years; n=10) wore a camera for 3 school evenings and 1 weekend day. The camera captured an image every 10 seconds. Fieldwork was completed between February and March 2020, and data were analyzed in August 2020. Images were date and time stamped, and coded for screen type, content, and context.

resultsData representing 71,396 images were analyzed. Overall, 74.0% (52,842/71,396) of images contained screens and 16.8% (11,976/71,396) of images contained multiple screens. Most screen exposures involved television sets (25,950/71,396, 36.3%), smartphones (20,851/71,396, 29.2%), and laptop computers (15,309/71,396, 21.4%). The context of screen use differed by device type, although most screen exposures occurred at home (62,455/64,856, 96.3%) and with solitary engagement (54,430/64,856, 83.9%). The immediate after-school period saw high laptop computer use (4785/15,950, 30.0%), while smartphone use (2059/5320, 38.7%) peaked during prebedtime hours. Weekend screen exposure was high, with smartphone use (1070/1927, 55.5%) peaking in the early morning period and fluctuating throughout the day.

conclusionsThere was evidence for high screen use during the after-school and weekend period, mostly through solitary engagement, and within the home environment. The findings may inform the basis of larger studies aimed at examining screen exposure in free-living conditions.

Indexed as

adolescentscreen timesmartphonetelevision

Identifiers

PMID35311672
PMCPMC8981006

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.