Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39102255›Full record

SynthesisJAMA pediatrics2024

Early Childhood Screen Use Contexts and Cognitive and Psychosocial Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Sumudu Mallawaarachchi, Jade Burley, Myrto Mavilidi, Steven J Howard, Leon Straker, Lisa Kervin, Sally Staton, Nicole Hayes, Amanda Machell, Marina Torjinski and 7 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA pediatrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

17 authors.

Sumudu MallawaarachchiSchool of Education, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.
Jade BurleySchool of Education, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.
Myrto MavilidiSchool of Education, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.
Steven J HowardSchool of Education, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.
Leon StrakerAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Lisa KervinSchool of Education, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.
Sally StatonAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Nicole HayesAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Amanda MachellAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Marina TorjinskiAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Brodie BradySchool of Education, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.
George ThomasAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Sharon HorwoodAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Sonia L J WhiteAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Juliana ZabatieroAustralian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Clara RiveraSchool of Education, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.
Dylan CliffSchool of Education, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The multifaceted nature of screen use has been largely overlooked in favor of a simplistic unidimensional measure of overall screen time when evaluating the benefits and risks of screen use to early childhood development. Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine associations of screen use contexts in early childhood with cognitive and psychosocial outcomes. Data Sources: PsycINFO, Embase, MEDLINE Ovid, ProQuest, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from inception to December 31, 2023. Study Selection: A total of 7441 studies were initially identified. Studies were included if they examined associations between a contextual factor of screen use among children aged 0 to 5.99 years and cognitive or psychosocial development. Observational, experimental, and randomized clinical trial study designs were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: All studies were independently screened in duplicate following PRISMA guidelines. Effect sizes of associations (r) from observational studies were pooled using random-effects 3-level meta-analyses. The remaining study designs were narratively synthesized. Main Outcomes and Measures: Screen use contexts included content (child directed and age inappropriate), type (program viewing and game or app use), co-use (or solo use), background television, caregiver screen use during child routines, and purpose. Outcomes were cognitive (executive functioning, language, and academic skills) or psychosocial (internalizing and externalizing behavior problems and socioemotional competence). Results: Overall, 100 studies (176 742 participants) were included, and of these, 64 observational studies (pooled sample sizes ranging from 711 to 69 232) were included in meta-analyses. Program viewing (n = 14; k = 48; r, -0.16; 95% CI, -0.24 to -0.08) and background television (n = 8; k = 18; r, -0.10; 95% CI, -0.18 to -0.02) were negatively associated with cognitive outcomes, while program viewing (n = 6; k = 31; r, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.07 to -0.01), age-inappropriate content (n = 9; k = 36; r, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.17 to -0.04), and caregiver screen use during routines (n = 6; k = 14; r, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.20 to -0.03) were negatively associated with psychosocial outcomes. Co-use was positively associated with cognitive outcomes (n = 8; k = 28; r, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.25). Conclusions and Relevance: Findings show small to moderate effect sizes that highlight the need to consider screen use contexts when making recommendations for families, clinicians, and educators beyond screen time limits; including encouraging intentional and productive screen use, age-appropriate content, and co-use with caregivers.

Indexed as

Child DevelopmentCognitionScreen TimeChild, PreschoolHumansInfantInfant, NewbornTelevision

Identifiers

PMID39102255
PMCPMC12527480

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.