ArticleAdvances in life course research2021
A life course framework for understanding digital technology use in the transition to adulthood.
Article in Advances in life course research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Characterizing Digital Communication Device Use Among Young People From 4 European Countries: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- A precautionary approach to social media: protecting young minds in an evolving digital world.The Medical journal of Australia · 2025Article
- Perspectives of treatment providers overseeing substance use disorder treatment among transition-age adults, aged 18-25 years.Journal of substance use and addiction treatment · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Rapid increases in young people's time spent using digital technology ("screen time") in the mobile internet era have led to anxiety about long-term effects. This mixed-method US study examines childhood experiences and contextual factors that shape screen time in the transition to adulthood. We recursively analyzed 56 qualitative interviews with young adults in a large metropolitan area in 2016-2018 and prospective longitudinal nationally representative survey data (PSID-CDS-2007 and PSID-TAS-2017) to articulate a conceptual framework of life course influences on young adults' time spent using digital technologies. Inductive qualitative analyses built an initial framework, which was assessed with quantitative data, then further refined with qualitative analyses. Young adults drew on life course perspectives when discussing influences on their current digital technology use. As they suggested, in quantitative analyses more frequent adolescent technology use and greater device access weakly predicted increased technology frequency. Current school enrollment and several current peer factors predicted technology time. Interviewees emphasized the influence of parenting around technology use during adolescence, but parenting did not predict young adult screen time in quantitative analyses. Further qualitative analyses suggested that instead of influencing current technology time, earlier parenting shaped current emotional responses and imagined future technology use. We found young adults' technology use frequency to be informed by earlier experiences but highly malleable. Past technology use and current social contexts matter, but only up to a point. Moving beyond time use to incorporate emotional responses and future plans can better capture how the life course shapes technology use.
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.