Parental Technoference and Child Problematic Media Use: Meta-Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parental technoference, the interruption of parent-child interactions by technology, has been associated with negative outcomes in children's media use. However, the magnitude of this relationship and its moderating factors remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to systematically examine the relationship between parental technoference and child problematic media use, as well as to identify moderating factors such as age, parental technoference group, study design, and type of problematic media use. METHODS: Following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted up to August 2024 across multiple databases, including Web of Science, EBSCO, ProQuest, PubMed, PsycINFO, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure, using predefined search strings. A total of 53 studies with a total of 60,555 participants (mean age of 13.84, SD 1.18 years) were included. Inclusion criteria comprised studies involving children under the age of 22 years, assessing the association between parental technoference and child problematic media use with valid measures, and reporting necessary statistical data. Exclusion criteria included studies focusing on other child outcomes, having sample sizes <30, or being case reports or review papers. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed using R (version 4.2.1; R Foundation for Statistical Computing) with the meta and metafor packages to evaluate the association and conduct moderator analyses. RESULTS: The meta-analysis identified a significant positive association between parental technoference and child problematic media use (r=0.296, 95% CI 0.259-0.331). Moderator analyses revealed that both parental technoference group (P<.001) and study design (P=.008) significantly influenced this relationship. Specifically, the association was stronger when both parents engaged in technoference compared to when only 1 parent did, and in cross-sectional studies compared to longitudinal studies. Age, gender, publication status, and type of problematic media use did not significantly moderate the relationship (all P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis provides robust evidence of the association between parental technoference and child problematic media use. The findings highlight the need for family-based interventions and underscore the importance of longitudinal research to understand the temporal dynamics of this relationship better. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023471997; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=471997.
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.
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 | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 it