Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42545698›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2026

Screen Use and Emotional, Behavioral, and Social Development in Children.

Fiona McQuaid, Valeria Skafida, Ruth McQuillan, Bohee Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Fiona McQuaidCentre of Population Health Sciences, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Valeria SkafidaSchool of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Ruth McQuillanCentre of Population Health Sciences, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Bohee LeeNational Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The association between electronic screen use and psychosocial development in children remains unclear. Few studies account for longitudinal associations or fully adjust for key covariates such as family functioning. Objective: To evaluate the cross-sectional association between screen use and psychosocial development at 5, 10, and 15 years of age and the longitudinal association between screen use at 5 years of age and psychosocial development at 10 and 15 years of age. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of a cohort study used data from a large Scottish birth cohort, with follow-up at 5, 10, and 15 years of age between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2020. Data were obtained and analyzed between April 2025 and March 2026. Exposure: Screen use during nonschool hours was reported by parents or participants for children at 5, 10, and 15 years of age. Main Outcomes and Measures: Psychosocial development was measured using a parent-completed Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) at each time point. SDQ scores were analyzed continuously and dichotomized at established cutoffs for above-average total difficulties scores (TDSs; score ≥14) and below-average prosocial scores (<8). Multivariable linear and logistic regression models assessed cross-sectional associations at each age and longitudinal associations between screen use at 5 years of age and SDQ scores at 10 and 15 years of age. Results: A total of 3786 children were included at 5 years of age (median [IQR] age, 58 [58-58] months; 1929 [51.0%] male and 1857 [49.0%] female), 3126 at 10 years of age (median [IQR] age, 122 [120-125] months; 1578 [50.5%] male and 1548 [49.5%] female), and 2598 at 15 years of age (median [IQR] age, 175 [172-179] months; 1289 [49.6%] male and 1308 [50.3%] female). Daily screen use increased with age, with patterns varying by screen type. Cross-sectional analyses showed no significant associations between screen use and TDS at 5 or 10 years of age. At 15 years of age, more than 5 h/d of gaming was significantly associated with higher odds of above-average TDS than less than 1 h/d (odds ratio [OR], 2.61; 95% CI, 1.49-4.57). Conversely, more than 1 h/d of social media and messaging was associated with lower odds of above-average TDS than less than 1 h/d (ranging from OR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.39-0.84] to 0.61 [95% CI, 0.38-1.00] for 1-2 h/d of screen use). Longitudinally, more than 5 h/d of screen use at 5 years of age was associated with increased odds of above-average TDSs at 10 years of age (OR, 2.68, 95% CI, 1.25-5.76), but this association was lost at 15 years of age and in sensitivity analyses. No associations were seen for the prosocial score. Conclusion and Relevance: In this cohort study, screen use was not consistently associated with poorer outcomes for children. These findings suggest that guidelines focusing solely on screen time may have limited impact on psychosocial outcomes.

Indexed as

Child BehaviorChild DevelopmentEmotionsScreen TimeAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolCross-Sectional StudiesDigital MediaFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMedia ExposureScotland

Identifiers

PMID42545698
PMCPMC13434863

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.