ArticlePLOS digital health2024
How can digital citizen science approaches improve ethical smartphone use surveillance among youth: Traditional surveys versus ecological momentary assessments.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Strengthening Culturally Responsive Mental Health Supports for Crises Preparedness: Lessons From Indigenous Educator's Experiences During COVID-19 Pandemic.The Journal of school health · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ubiquitous use of smartphones among youth poses significant challenges related to non-communicable diseases, including poor mental health. Although traditional survey measures can be used to assess smartphone use among youth, they are subject to recall bias. This study aims to compare self-reported smartphone use via retrospective modified traditional recall survey and prospective Ecological Momentary Assessments (EMAs) among youth. This study uses data from the Smart Platform, which engages with youth as citizen scientists. Youth (N = 77) aged 13-21 years in two urban jurisdictions in Canada (Regina and Saskatoon) engaged with our research team using a custom-built application via their own smartphones to report on a range of behaviours and outcomes on eight consecutive days. Youth reported smartphone use utilizing a traditional validated measure, which was modified to capture retrospective smartphone use on both weekdays and weekend days. In addition, daily EMAs were also time-triggered over a period of eight days to capture prospective smartphone use. Demographic, behavioural, and contextual factors were also collected. Data analyses included t-test and linear regression using Python statistical software. There was a significant difference between weekdays, weekends and overall smartphone use reported retrospectively and prospectively (p-value = <0.001), with youth reporting less smartphone use via EMAs. Overall retrospective smartphone use was significantly associated with not having a part-time job (β = 139.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 34.759, 244.519, p-value = 0.010) and having more than two friends who are physically active (β = -114.72, 95%[CI] = -208.872, -20.569, p-value = 0.018). However, prospective smartphone use reported via EMAs was not associated with any behavioural and contextual factors. The findings of this study have implications for appropriately understanding and monitoring smartphone use in the digital age among youth. EMAs can potentially minimize recall bias of smartphone use among youth, and other behaviours such as physical activity. More importantly, digital citizen science approaches that engage large populations of youth using their own smartphones can transform how we ethically monitor and mitigate the impact of excessive smartphone use.
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.