Loading...
An umbrella review of the benefits and risks associated with youths’ interactions with electronic screens
Sanders, Taren Grant Noetel, Michael Parker, Philip David del Pozo Cruz, Borja Biddle, Stuart Ronto, Rimante Hulteen, Ryan Parker, Rhiannon B. Thomas, George De Cocker, Katrien
Sanders, Taren Grant
Noetel, Michael
Parker, Philip David
del Pozo Cruz, Borja
Biddle, Stuart
Ronto, Rimante
Hulteen, Ryan
Parker, Rhiannon B.
Thomas, George
De Cocker, Katrien
Author
Sanders, Taren Grant
Noetel, Michael
Parker, Philip David
del Pozo Cruz, Borja
Biddle, Stuart
Ronto, Rimante
Hulteen, Ryan
Parker, Rhiannon B.
Thomas, George
De Cocker, Katrien
Salmon, Jo
Hesketh, Kylie
Weeks, Nicole
Arnott, Hugh
Devine, Emma K.
Pires Vasconcellos, Roberta
Pagano, Rebecca Stella
Sherson, Jamie
Conigrave, James
Lonsdale, Christopher Sean
Noetel, Michael
Parker, Philip David
del Pozo Cruz, Borja
Biddle, Stuart
Ronto, Rimante
Hulteen, Ryan
Parker, Rhiannon B.
Thomas, George
De Cocker, Katrien
Salmon, Jo
Hesketh, Kylie
Weeks, Nicole
Arnott, Hugh
Devine, Emma K.
Pires Vasconcellos, Roberta
Pagano, Rebecca Stella
Sherson, Jamie
Conigrave, James
Lonsdale, Christopher Sean
Abstract
The influence of electronic screens on the health of children and adolescents and their education is not well understood. In this prospectively registered umbrella review (PROSPERO identifier CRD42017076051), we harmonized effects from 102 meta-analyses (2,451 primary studies; 1,937,501 participants) of screen time and outcomes. In total, 43 effects from 32 meta-analyses met our criteria for statistical certainty. Meta-analyses of associations between screen use and outcomes showed small-to-moderate effects (range: r = –0.14 to 0.33). In education, results were mixed; for example, screen use was negatively associated with literacy (r = –0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) = –0.20 to –0.09, P ≤ 0.001, k = 38, N = 18,318), but this effect was positive when parents watched with their children (r = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.02 to 0.28, P = 0.028, k = 12, N = 6,083). In health, we found evidence for several small negative associations; for example, social media was associated with depression (r = 0.12, 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.19, P ≤ 0.001, k = 12, N = 93,740). Limitations of our review include the limited number of studies for each outcome, medium-to-high risk of bias in 95 out of 102 included meta-analyses and high heterogeneity (17 out of 22 in education and 20 out of 21 in health with I2 > 50%). We recommend that caregivers and policymakers carefully weigh the evidence for potential harms and benefits of specific types of screen use.
Keywords
Risk factors, Social sciences, Education, Health Sciences, Medicine
Date
2023
Type
Journal article
Journal
Book
Volume
Issue
Page Range
1-21
Article Number
ACU Department
Institute for Positive Psychology and Education
Faculty of Education and Arts
School of Behavioural and Health Sciences
Faculty of Health Sciences
School of Education
Non-faculty
Faculty of Education and Arts
School of Behavioural and Health Sciences
Faculty of Health Sciences
School of Education
Non-faculty
Collections
Relation URI
Event URL
Open Access Status
License
CC BY 4.0
File Access
Open
Notes
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.