“It's Been Negative for Us Just All the Way Across the Board”: Focus Group Study Exploring Parent Perceptions of Child Screen Time During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Child screen time (ST) has soared during the COVID-19 pandemic as lockdowns and restrictions have forced changes to regular family routines. It is important to investigate how families are navigating ST. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore families' experiences of ST during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Virtual focus group sessions were conducted between December 2020 and February 2021 in English and Spanish. Transcripts were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: In total, 48 parents (predominantly Hispanic) residing in California participated in 1 of 14 focus group sessions. Children were attending school remotely at the time of the study. A total of 6 themes and 1 subtheme were identified: (1) total ST has increased; (2) children are too attached to screens; (3) ST has advantages and disadvantages but parents perceive ST as mostly negative; (4) parents and children have limited options; (5) ST restrictions (subtheme: children react negatively when ST is restricted); and (6) parents are concerned that children are not getting enough exercise. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a cross-sectional insight into how family life has changed with regard to ST during the COVID-19 pandemic. Parents expressed concerns about total ST, the addictive nature of it, and lack of physical activity. It is important that future studies examine the long-term effects of heavy ST and preemptively introduce ways to redirect children's ST habits as the country attempts to establish a new normal.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".