ArticleJMIR pediatrics and parenting2026
Comparison of Capturing Children's Technology Use Using Wearable Camera and Fixed Room Video: Experimental Laboratory Study.
Article in JMIR pediatrics and parenting, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Technology use by children has implications for their physical, mental, and social health and development. There are many challenges in measuring modern screen use by children. To better understand the potential impact of technology on children, it is crucial to have robust methods to measure technology use. Visual recording data may be particularly well suited to capture modern digital technology use (eg, rapid transitions, multitasking, and device switching). It would be valuable to directly compare the 2 commonly used methods (wearable camera images and room video frames) to determine what is captured best by each and how they compare when both are coded by human annotation. Objective: This study aimed to compare wearable camera images and room video frames to understand what can be captured from each source. Methods: In a laboratory study, children (aged 3-14 years) performed various tasks while wearing a wearable camera and being video recorded by room video cameras. Comparisons between the coding of the wearable camera images and room video frames were performed on a second-by-second basis. Confusion matrices were generated to identify patterns of differences in classifications between wearable camera images and room video frame coding. Percent agreement between the wearable camera image and room video frame coding was calculated based on the confusion matrix. Results: Across 44 participants, 182,451 contemporaneous wearable camera images and room video frames were coded and merged. There were generally low levels of agreement between the codes. The highest agreement was found for "desktop" and "handheld gaming," and the lowest agreement was found for "smartwatch." The wearable camera and room video methods varied in sampling rate, camera movement, and field of view, leading to differences in what was captured. Conclusions: Room video might better capture technology that is within a set space and the context of the technology use, while wearable cameras could better capture active technology use, the content of technology, and different locations. Capturing technology use by children is difficult, with no gold standard and no one ideal method.
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.