Type of screen time moderates effects on outcomes in 4013 children: evidence from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children
Sanders T, Parker PD, Del Pozo-Cruz B, Noetel M, Lonsdale C
The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 80 citas
Cómo se estudió
- Diseño
- Estudio de cohortes (indexado por PubMed)
- Estudiado en
- Personas
- Resultado principal
- Marcadores de salud y funcionamiento
Quién lo pagó
- Financiación
- Financiación independiente
- Gobierno
- Department of Social Services, Australian Government
- Universidad u hospital
- Australian Catholic University
Según 2 financiadores declarados.
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2019-11-29 · Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act · vol. 16 · número 1 · pág. 117
- Editorial
- BioMed Central
- Citado
- 165 citas · más que el 100% de estudios similares · 44.8× el promedio de su campo
- Impacto
- Entre el 10 % más citado de su campo
- Referencias
- 34 trabajos
- Acceso
- Acceso abierto (revista) · CC-BY
- Áreas de investigación
- Child Development and Digital Technology · Impact of Technology on Adolescents · Literacy, Media, and Education
- Palabras clave
- screen time, children, video games, television, health-related quality of life, social-emotional outcomes, academic performance, physical health, moderation, curvilinear relationship, Longitudinal Study of Australian Children
- MeSH
- humans, longitudinal studies, child behavior, quality of life, child, educational status, australia, screen time
5 autores
- Taren Sanders🇦🇺 · autor de correspondenciaAustralian Catholic University
- Philip David Parker🇦🇺Australian Catholic University
- Borja del Pozo Cruz🇦🇺Australian Catholic University
- Michael Noetel🇦🇺Australian Catholic University
- Chris Lonsdale🇦🇺Australian Catholic University
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
Background
Excessive engagement with digital screens is harmful to children's health. However, new evidence suggests that exposure at moderate levels may not be harmful and may even provide benefit. Therefore, our objective was to determine if there are curvilinear relationships between different types of screen time and a diverse set of outcomes, including health and education.
Methods
We address our objective using a repeated measures design. Children (N = 4013), initially aged 10-11 were assessed every 2 years between 2010 and 2014. Children's screen time behavior was measured using time-use diaries, and categorized into five types: social, passive, interactive, educational, or other. We used measures of children's physical health, health-related quality of life, socio-emotional outcomes, and school achievement. The analysis plan was pre-registered. Models were adjusted for gender, socio-economic status, ethnicity, number of siblings, and housing factors.
Results
There were linear associations between total screen time and all outcomes, such that more screen time was associated with worse outcomes. However, there was variability when examined by screen time type. Passive screen time (e.g., TV) was associated with worse outcomes, educational screen time (e.g., computer for homework) was associated with positive educational outcomes and had no negative relations with other outcomes. Interactive screen time (e.g., video games) had positive associations with educational outcomes but negative associations with other outcomes. In all instances, these significant associations were small or very small, with standardised effects < 0.07. We found little evidence of curvilinear relationships.
Conclusions
The small effects of screen time on children's outcomes appear to be moderated by the type of screen time. Policy makers, educators, and parents should consider the type of screen time when considering the benefits and harms of use.
Resumen vía Europe PMC. Los derechos de autor siguen siendo de los autores o la editorial (CC BY).
Confianza de la comunidad
Cargando…
¿Cuánto confías en los hallazgos de este estudio?
Comentarios
¿Algo está mal aquí?
Señala este estudio si su información, etiquetas o financiación parecen incorrectas. Un editor revisa cada señalamiento.
Información educativa sobre investigación publicada. No es consejo médico ni una recomendación para empezar o dejar nada.