ArticleTranslational journal of the American College of Sports Medicine2022
Feasibility and Acceptability of Wearable Sensor Placement for Measuring Screen Time of Children.
Article in Translational journal of the American College of Sports Medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The feasibility of passively tracking children's TV viewing and mobile device use in naturalistic settings.Behaviour & information technology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction/Purpose: Wearables that include a color light sensor are a promising measure of electronic screen use in adults. However, to extend this approach to children, we need to understand feasibility of wear placement. The purpose of this study was to examine parent perceptions of children's acceptability of different sensor placements and feasibility of free-living 3- to 7-day wear protocols. Methods: This study was conducted in three phases. In phase 1, caregivers (n=161) of 3- to 8-year-old children completed an online survey to rate aspects of fitting and likelihood of wear for seven methods (headband, eyeglasses, skin adhesive patch, shirt clip/badge, mask, necklace, and vest). In phase 2, children (n=31) were recruited to wear one of the top five prototypes for three days (n=6 per method). In phase 3, children (n=23) were recruited to wear prototypes of the top three prototypes from phase 2 (n=8 per method) for 7 days. In phases 2 and 3, parents completed wear logs and surveys about their experiences. Parents scored each wearable on three domains (ease of use, likelihood of wear, and child enjoyment). Scores were averaged to compute an everyday "usability" score (0, worst, to 200, best). Results: Phase 1 results suggested that the headband, eyeglasses, patch, clip/badge, and vest had the best potential for long-term wear. In phase 2, time spent wearing prototypes and usability scores were highest for the eyeglasses (10.4 hours/day, score=155.4), clip/badge (9.8 hours/day, score=145.8), and vest (7.1 hours/day, score=141.7). In phase 3, wearing time and usability scores were higher for the clip/badge (9.4 hours/day, score=169.6) and eyeglasses (6.5 hours/day, score=145.3) compared to the vest (4.8 hours/day, score=112.5). Conclusion: Results indicate that wearable sensors clipped to a child's shirt or embedded into eyeglasses are feasible and acceptable wear methods in free-living settings. The next step is to asses the quality, validity, and reliability of data captured using these wear methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.