Impacts of Parental Technoference on Parent–Child Relationships and Child Health and Developmental Outcomes: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parental technological immersion during parenting activities has been shown to alter parent-child interactions. This concept, referred to as parental technoference, has the potential to affect parent-child relationships and children's health and development. This scoping review utilized the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology to identify, describe, and summarize: (a) evidence of parental technoference on parent-child relationships, and children's health and development; (b) definitions and measurements of parental technoference; (c) research designs and methodologies used to investigate parental technoference; and (d) literature gaps. We searched MEDLINE, APA PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews, JBI EBP Database, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus, as well as the reference lists of included studies for literature on parental technology use during parenting and parent-child interactions and its effects on parent-child relationships, and children's health and development. Sixty-four studies, found in 61 publications, met the review criteria. The effect of parental technoference on parent-child relationships was most studied, and findings demonstrated that parents recognized, and researchers observed, changes in parents' and children's behaviors. Adolescent self-reported mental health concerns and maladaptive technological behaviors (e.g., cyberbullying) were associated with more parental technoference, and findings highlighted safety concerns for children. Other aspects of children's development, although less studied, were also negatively impacted by parental technoference. No significant associations were found between parental technoference and children's medical and physiological health, yet these associations were the least studied. Additional research is needed to understand these associations and evaluate interventions designed to mitigate technoference harms.
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 | 0.008 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".