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 citations
How it was studied
- Design
- Cohort study (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Health markers and function
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Independent funding
- Government
- Department of Social Services, Australian Government
- University or hospital
- Australian Catholic University
Based on 2 listed funder(s).
Publication
- Published
- 2019-11-29 · Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act · vol. 16 · issue 1 · p. 117
- Publisher
- BioMed Central
- Cited
- 165 citations · more than 100% of similar papers · 44.8× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 34 works
- Access
- Open access (journal) · CC-BY
- Research areas
- Child Development and Digital Technology · Impact of Technology on Adolescents · Literacy, Media, and Education
- Keywords
- 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 authors
From AU
- Taren Sanders · correspondingAustralian Catholic University
- Philip David ParkerAustralian Catholic University
- Borja del Pozo CruzAustralian Catholic University
- Michael NoetelAustralian Catholic University
- Chris LonsdaleAustralian Catholic University
Abstract
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.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY).
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.