Questionnaires Used to Explore the Perspectives of Parents and Health Professionals on Young Children’s Use of Technology: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> Technology is integrated into children’s daily lives, with parents’ and health professionals’ perspectives shaping children’s technology use. Measuring and understanding these perspectives is essential for developing strategies for supporting adults in decision-making that help children thrive in a digital world. </sec> <sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> This systematic review aimed to investigate questionnaires that have been used to assess parents’ and health professionals’ perspectives on young children’s use of technology related to health, wellbeing, and development. The secondary aim was to synthesize findings on these perspectives. </sec> <sec> <title>METHODS</title> Peer-reviewed articles published between January 2010 and September 2024 were identified through searches in seven electronic databases. Studies were included if they examined parental or healthcare professionals’ perspectives on technology use among children aged birth-5 years. Two reviewers independently conducted the data extraction and quality assessment. Deductive thematic analysis was utilised to explore the content focus of the questionnaire used in the included studies and synthesise the reported perspectives. </sec> <sec> <title>RESULTS</title> Eighty-five studies were included, all involving parents. No study investigated health professionals’ perspectives. The methodological quality of questionnaires used was generally low and only 39 studies reported psychometric properties of the questionnaires used. Of these, 15 studies reported more than one measure of validity or reliability. Seventy-five studies reported participants’ perspectives on children’s technology use. Findings revealed that parents generally supported the role of digital devices in enhancing learning but expressed concerns about potential negative impacts on children’s physical health, emotions, and behaviours. </sec> <sec> <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> Parents’ perspectives on children’s technology use are frequently assessed through questionnaires, though the quality of these questionnaires was often poor, with limited psychometric testing. Parental perspectives were mixed with educational benefits being recognised but countered with concerns about the impact on children’s physical health and development. High-quality tools are needed to generate stronger evidence informing strategies to support families in technology decision-making with children. </sec>
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".