Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36650495›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2023

Screen-viewing behaviours of children before and after the 2020-21 COVID-19 lockdowns in the UK: a mixed methods study.

Ruth Salway, Robert Walker, Kate Sansum, Danielle House, Lydia Emm-Collison, Tom Reid, Katie Breheny, Joanna G Williams, Frank de Vocht, William Hollingworth and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
36.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Dry Eye Syndrome in Children during the COVID-19 Pandemic.Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO · 2024
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ruth Salway *Centre for Exercise, Nutrition & Health Sciences, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1TZ, United Kingdom. Ruth.Salway@bristol.ac.uk.
Robert Walker *Centre for Exercise, Nutrition & Health Sciences, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1TZ, United Kingdom.
Kate SansumCentre for Exercise, Nutrition & Health Sciences, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1TZ, United Kingdom.
Danielle HouseCentre for Exercise, Nutrition & Health Sciences, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1TZ, United Kingdom.
Lydia Emm-CollisonCentre for Exercise, Nutrition & Health Sciences, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1TZ, United Kingdom.
Tom ReidCentre for Exercise, Nutrition & Health Sciences, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1TZ, United Kingdom.
Katie BrehenyPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PS, United Kingdom.
Joanna G WilliamsPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PS, United Kingdom.
Frank de VochtPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PS, United Kingdom.
William HollingworthPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PS, United Kingdom.
Charlie FosterCentre for Exercise, Nutrition & Health Sciences, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1TZ, United Kingdom.
Russell JagoCentre for Exercise, Nutrition & Health Sciences, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1TZ, United Kingdom.
University of Bristol · GBBristol City Council · GBNIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre · GB

Funding

British Heart Foundation SP 14/4/31123British Heart Foundation SP/14/4/31123National Institute for Health and Care Research 131847
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRestrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic have led to increased screen-viewing among children, especially during strict periods of lockdown. However, the extent to which screen-viewing patterns in UK school children have changed post lockdowns is unclear. The aim of this paper is to examine how screen-viewing changed in 10-11-year-old children over the 2020-21 COVID-19 pandemic, how this compares to before the pandemic, and the influences on screen-viewing behaviour.

methodsThis is a mixed methods study with 10-11-year-olds from 50 schools in the Greater Bristol area, UK. Cross-sectional questionnaire data on minutes of weekday and weekend television (TV) viewing and total leisure screen-viewing were collected pre-COVID-19 in 2017-18 (N = 1,296) and again post-lockdowns in 2021 (N = 393). Data were modelled using Poisson mixed models, adjusted for age, gender, household education and seasonality, with interactions by gender and household education. Qualitative data were drawn from six focus groups (47 children) and 21 one-to-one parent interviews that explored screen-viewing behaviour during the pandemic and analysed using the framework method.

resultsTotal leisure screen-viewing was 11% (95% CI: 12%-18%) higher post-lockdown compared to pre-COVID-19 on weekdays, and 8% (95% CI: 6%-10%) on weekends, equating to around 12-15 min. TV-viewing (including streaming) was higher by 68% (95% CI: 63%-74%) on weekdays and 80% (95% CI: 75%-85%) on weekend days. Differences in both were higher for girls and children from households with lower educational attainment. Qualitative themes reflected an unavoidable increase in screen-based activities during lockdowns, the resulting habitualisation of screen-viewing post-lockdown, and the role of the parent in reducing post-2020/21 lockdown screen-viewing.

conclusionsAlthough screen-viewing was higher post-lockdown compared to pre-COVID-19, the high increases reported during lockdowns were not, on average, sustained post-lockdown. This may be attributed to a combination of short-term fluctuations during periods of strict restrictions, parental support in regulating post-lockdown behaviour and age-related, rather than COVID-19-specific, increases in screen-viewing. However, socio-economic differences in our sample suggest that not all families were able to break the COVID-19-related adoption of screen-viewing, and that some groups may need additional support in managing a healthy balance of screen-viewing and other activities following the lockdowns.

Indexed as

ComputersCOVID-19ChildCommunicable Disease ControlCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansPandemicsSedentary BehaviorSurveys and QuestionnairesTelevisionUnited KingdomCoronavirusElectronic device useScreen timeSedentary behaviourTelevision viewing

Identifiers

PMID36650495
PMCPMC9843116
OpenAlexW4316804730

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.