Impacts of Parental Technoference on Parent-Child Relationships and Child Health and Developmental Outcomes: A Scoping Review Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: With increases in the use of technological devices worldwide, parental technoference is a potential threat to quality of parent-child relationships and children’s health and development. Parental technoference refers to disrupted interactions between a parent and child due to a parent’s use of a technological device. The aim of this scoping review is to map, describe and summarize existing evidence from published research studies on the impacts of parental technoference on parent-child relationships and children’s health and development and to identify limitations in the studies and gaps in the literature. Methods: This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology. A search for relevant research studies will be undertaken in APA PsycInfo, MEDLINE, Central, Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews, JBI EBP and Embase (OVID). CINAHL (Ebsco) and Scopus will also be searched. Grey and popular literature will be excluded. This review will include primary research studies and review papers published in English with no time limit that identify the impacts of technoference on parent-child relationships and child health and developmental outcomes. Parent participants include primary caregivers, either biological, adopted or foster parents, of children under the age of 18 who engage in technoference. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full texts of studies according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion with a third researcher. Data will be extracted into a data charting table including; author(s), year of publication, country, research aim, methodology/design, population and sample size, variables/concepts and corresponding measures and main results. Data will be presented in tables and figures accompanied by a narrative summary. Discussion: The goal of this scoping review is to present an overview of the evidence on impacts of parental technoference on parent-child relationships and child and health developmental outcomes, highlighting the current risk of children of today. It will identify gaps in the literature, inform future research, advise recommendations for parents on technological device use and possibly guide the development of interventions aimed at addressing parental technoference. Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework (10.17605/OSF.IO/QNTS5)
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.106 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.074 | 0.016 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".