Psychological impacts of "screen time" and "green time" for children and adolescents: A systematic scoping review
Oswald TK, Rumbold AR, Kedzior SGE, Moore VM
PloS one · 139 citas
Cómo se estudió
- Diseño
- Revisión sistemática (clasificado por nuestro filtro de IA)
- Estudiado en
- Personas
- Resultado principal
- Marcadores de salud y funcionamiento
Quién lo pagó
- Financiación
- Financiación independiente
- Gobierno
- Australian Government
Según 1 financiador declarado y la declaración de financiación del texto completo.
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2020-09-04 · PLoS One · vol. 15 · número 9 · pág. e0237725
- Editorial
- Public Library of Science
- Citado
- 371 citas · más que el 100% de estudios similares · 64.2× el promedio de su campo
- Impacto
- Entre el 10 % más citado de su campo
- Referencias
- 270 trabajos
- Acceso
- Acceso abierto (revista) · CC-BY
- Áreas de investigación
- Child Development and Digital Technology · Urban Green Space and Health · Psychological and Temporal Perspectives Research
- Palabras clave
- screen time, green time, nature exposure, children and adolescents, youth mental health, psychological well-being, cognitive function, academic performance, socioeconomic disparities
- MeSH
- humans, language, psychology, geography, nature, socioeconomic factors, publications, adolescent, child, screen time
4 autores
- Tassia Kate Oswald🇦🇺 · autor de correspondenciaThe University of Adelaide
- Alice R. Rumbold🇦🇺South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute; The University of Adelaide
- Sophie G. E. Kedzior🇦🇺The University of Adelaide
- Vivienne Moore🇦🇺The University of Adelaide
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
Technological developments in recent decades have increased young people's engagement with screen-based technologies (screen time), and a reduction in young people's contact with nature (green time) has been observed concurrently. This combination of high screen time and low green time may affect mental health and well-being. The aim of this systematic scoping review was to collate evidence assessing associations between screen time, green time, and psychological outcomes (including mental health, cognitive functioning, and academic achievement) for young children (<5 years), schoolchildren (5-11 years), early adolescents (12-14 years), and older adolescents (15-18 years). Original quantitative studies were identified in four databases (PubMed, PsycInfo, Scopus, Embase), resulting in 186 eligible studies. A third of included studies were undertaken in Europe and almost as many in the United States. The majority of studies were cross-sectional (62%). In general, high levels of screen time appeared to be associated with unfavourable psychological outcomes while green time appeared to be associated with favourable psychological outcomes. The ways screen time and green time were conceptualised and measured were highly heterogeneous, limiting the ability to synthesise the literature. The preponderance of cross-sectional studies with broadly similar findings, despite heterogeneous exposure measures, suggested results were not artefacts. However, additional high-quality longitudinal studies and randomised controlled trials are needed to make a compelling case for causal relationships. Different developmental stages appeared to shape which exposures and outcomes were salient. Young people from low socioeconomic backgrounds may be disproportionately affected by high screen time and low green time. Future research should distinguish between passive and interactive screen activities, and incidental versus purposive exposure to nature. Few studies considered screen time and green time together, and possible reciprocal psychological effects. However, there is preliminary evidence that green time could buffer consequences of high screen time, therefore nature may be an under-utilised public health resource for youth psychological well-being in a high-tech era.
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.