ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2025
Process evaluation of a Germany-wide complex intervention to prevent dysregulated screen time in under threes: a RE-AIM-approach.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Children's current screen time is well above current recommendations and is associated with many health consequences in the first years of life. Methods: The complex intervention study "Screen free till 3" introduced parent education to a regular examination of 6-month-old children in outpatient pediatric practices. Pediatric practices were cluster-randomized in a 2:1 ratio (intervention group:control group). 2,581 pediatric practices received the intervention materials by cold call and participated by self-selection. The study includes a process evaluation that examines the implementation process. In this article, four different quantitative methods of the process evaluation are evaluated according to the RE-AIM scheme. Result: 33.4% of pediatric practices confirmed their participation in the study. 10,391 parents took part in the pre-interventional app-based parent survey. 151 interested institutions contacted the research team by email. The majority (84.1%) asked to take part in the study. 518 pediatric practices took part in a telephone survey, of which 87.2% said that they are supported by the intervention materials and 91.6% would recommend the project to others. Discussion: The RE-AIM analysis shows a high reach of parents via the app. The high adoption by pediatric practices and other institutions characterizes the relevance of the topic as well as the innovation of the study materials. After one and a half years, the intervention is firmly integrated into the structures of pediatric practices in Germany. Trial register number: https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00032258, DRKS00032258.
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.