Paediatricians’ awareness of Canadian screen time guidelines, perception of screen time use, and counselling during the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Paediatricians are essential in guiding families on screen time use as digital media becomes increasingly prevalent. While this has been highlighted through the COVID-19 pandemic there is no literature on paediatricians' awareness of Canadian screen time guidelines, or perception of these guidelines during this time. The aim of this study was to assess pediatricians' knowledge, attitudes, and comfort with the Canadian Paediatric Society's (CPS) screen time guidelines, specifically during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Our survey was developed by a paediatric resident and paediatric endocrinologist, reviewed by local experts, and sent electronically to members of the CPS Community and Developmental Paediatrics sections. Results: All 53 respondents were aware of current CPS screen time guidelines, and the majority self-reported fair to excellent knowledge of guidelines for both age groups (<5 years and school-aged children/adolescents). Over 80% noticed increased screen use during the pandemic, and 98% were somewhat or very concerned about screen use and their patients' health and well-being. Pediatricians reported concerns about associations between increased screen time with worsening behaviour, mental health concerns, obesity, and sedentary lifestyle. The greatest barrier to reducing screen time was perceived insufficient motivation or support from caregivers/families. Conclusions: Responding Canadian paediatricians are knowledgeable and comfortable with current screen time guidelines in Canada. Despite this, there is increasing concern with health outcomes associated with screen use. These results highlight paediatricians' important role in counselling patients and may encourage further local advocacy and public education around screen use and associated health risks in children.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".