Study2020Open access

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 citations

How it was studied

Design
Systematic review (classified by our AI screen)
Studied in
People
Main outcome
Health markers and function

Who paid for it

Funding
Independent funding
Government
Australian Government

Based on 1 listed funder(s) and full-text disclosure statement.

Publication

Published
2020-09-04 · PLoS One · vol. 15 · issue 9 · p. e0237725
Publisher
Public Library of Science
Cited
371 citations · more than 100% of similar papers · 64.2× the field average
Impact
Top 10% most cited in its field
References
270 works
Access
Open access (journal) · CC-BY
Research areas
Child Development and Digital Technology · Urban Green Space and Health · Psychological and Temporal Perspectives Research
Keywords
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 authors

From AU

  • Tassia Kate Oswald · correspondingThe University of Adelaide
  • Alice R. RumboldSouth Australian Health and Medical Research Institute; The University of Adelaide
  • Sophie G. E. KedziorThe University of Adelaide
  • Vivienne MooreThe University of Adelaide

Abstract

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.

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?

0 · not at all10 · completely

Comments

Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign in

Something 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 in

Educational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.