Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37096246›Full record

ArticleSSM - population health2023

Objectively measured infant and toddler screen time: Findings from a prospective study.

Mary E Brushe, John W Lynch, Edward Melhuish, Sheena Reilly, Murthy N Mittinty, Sally A Brinkman

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in SSM - population health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  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

6 authors.

Mary E BrusheTelethon Kids Institute, Ground Floor, 108 North Terrace, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
John W LynchSchool of Public Health, University of Adelaide, Level 4, Rundle Mall Plaza Building, 50 Rundle Mall, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Edward MelhuishMenzies Health Institute Queensland, G40 Griffith Health Centre, Level 8.86 Gold Coast Campus, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia.
Sheena ReillyDepartment of Education, University of Oxford, 15 Norham Gardens, Oxford, OX2 6PY, UK.
Murthy N MittintyCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Sturt Road, Bedford Park, SA, Australia.
Sally A BrinkmanSchool of Public Health, University of Adelaide, Level 4, Rundle Mall Plaza Building, 50 Rundle Mall, Adelaide, SA, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Screen time guidelines recommend no screens under two years due to the potential negative impacts on development. While current reports suggest many children exceed this, research relies on parent reports of their children's screen exposure. We objectively assess screen exposure during the first two years and how it differs by maternal education and gender. Methods: This Australian prospective cohort study used speech recognition technology to understand young children's screen exposure over an average day. Data collection occurred every six months when children were 6, 12, 18 and, 24 months old (n = 207). The technology provided automated counts of children's exposure to electronic noise. Audio segments were then coded as screen exposure. Prevalence of screen exposure was quantified, and differences between demographics examined. Results: At six months, children were exposed to an average of 1hr, 16 min (SD = 1hr, 36 min) of screens per day, increasing to an average of 2 h, 28 min (SD = 2 h, 4 min) by 24-months. Some children at six months were exposed to more than 3 h of screen time per day. Inequalities in exposure were evident as early as six months. Children from higher educated families were exposed to 1hr,43 min fewer screens per day, 95%CI (-2hr, 13 min, -1hr, 11 min) compared to lower educated households, with this difference remaining consistent as children age. Girls were exposed to an additional 12 min of screens 95%CI (-20 min, 44 min) per day compared to boys at six months, but this difference reduced to only 5 min by 24-months. Conclusion: Using an objective measure of screen exposure, many families exceed screen time guidelines, the extent increasing with child's age. Furthermore, substantial differences between maternal education groups emerge as young as six months old. This highlights the need for education and supports for parents around screen use in the early years, balanced within the realities of modern life.

Indexed as

Early childhoodInequalitiesLENAScreen exposureScreen time

Identifiers

PMID37096246
PMCPMC10122061

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.