MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392571028 · doi:10.2196/43315

Evidence for Changes in Screen Use in the United States During Early Childhood Related to COVID-19 Pandemic Parent Stressors: Repeated Cross-Sectional Study

2024· article· en· W4392571028 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Jill R. Glassman, Kathryn L. Humphreys, Adam Jauregui, Arnold Milstein, Lee Sanders

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Pediatrics and Parenting · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Development and Digital Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSchool of Medicine, Stanford UniversityCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of Canada
KeywordsScreen timeStressorPsychological interventionPandemicPsychologySocioeconomic statusMedicineMental healthCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Clinical psychologyPsychiatryPopulationEnvironmental healthPhysical activityDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic transformed the home lives of many families in the United States, especially those with young children. Understanding the relationship between child and parent screen time and family stressors exacerbated by the pandemic may help inform interventions that aim to support early child development. OBJECTIVE: We aim to assess the changing relationship between family screen time and factors related to pandemic-induced remote work and childcare or school closures. METHODS: In the spring of 2021 we administered a survey, similar to one administered in the spring of 2019, to a national sample of parents of young children (aged 6 to 60 months). Using iterative sampling with propensity scores, we recruited participants whose sociodemographic characteristics matched the 2019 survey. Participants were aged >18 years, proficient in English or Spanish, and residing in the United States. The main outcomes were changes in child screen time (eg, mobile phone, tablet, computer, and television) and parenting technoference, defined as perceived screen-related interference with parent-child interactions. Additional survey items reported pandemic-related job loss, and changes to work hours, work location, caregiving responsibilities, day care or school access, and family health and socioeconomic status. RESULTS: We enrolled 280 parents, from diverse backgrounds. Parents reported pandemic-related changes in child screen time (mean increase of 1.1, SD 0.9 hours), and greater parenting technoference (3.0 to 3.4 devices interfering per day; P=.01). Increased child screen time and parenting technoference were highest for parents experiencing job loss (mean change in child screen time 1.46, SD 1.03; mean parenting technoference score 3.89, SD 2.05), second highest for working parents who did not lose their job (mean change in child screen time 1.02, SD 0.83; mean parenting technoference score 3.37, SD 1.94), and lowest for nonworking parents (mean change in child screen time 0.68, SD 0.66; mean parenting technoference score 2.66, SD 1.70), with differences significant at P<.01. School closure and job loss were most associated with increased child screen time during the pandemic after controlling for other stressors and sociodemographic characteristics (d=0.52, P<.001; d=0.31, P=.01). Increased child screen time and school closure were most associated with increased parenting technoference (d=0.78, P<.001; d=0.30, P=.01). CONCLUSIONS: Work and school changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with increased technology interference in the lives of young children. This study adds to our understanding of the interaction between technology use at home and social factors that are necessary to support early childhood health and development. It also supports possible enhanced recommendations for primary care providers and childcare educators to guide parents in establishing home-based "screen time rules" not only for their children but also for themselves.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.124
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Pediatrics and ParentingSame topicChild Development and Digital TechnologyFrench-language works237,207