MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415788382 · doi:10.70818/pjmr.2024.v01i01.042

Parents Perception of Using Digital Technology Among Preschool Children in Selected Schools in an Urban Community

2024· article· W4415788382 on OpenAlexaff
Susmita Deb Nath, Bijoy Kumer Paul, Syed Shariful Islam, Shaikh Kaniz Sayeda, Songeeta Sarker

Bibliographic record

VenuePacific Journal of Medical Research · 2024
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Development and Digital Technology
Canadian institutionsPrivy Council Office
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionPoint (geometry)Face (sociological concept)Data collectionFace-to-faceUrban community

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In the world we live in now, technological devices are becoming more and more important. Digital technology can be a source of information and a good way to learn new things, but it also has some draw backs. Devices like tablets, phones, and computers have taken the place of toys that children used to like. When looked at from this point of view, it can be said that many common technological devices today have both good and bad effects on people. Objective: To assess the parent’s perception of digital technology usage of preschool children in selected schools in Dhaka city, Bangladesh. Methodology: The cross-sectional study was carried out to determine the A total of 123 preschool children’s (age:3-6yrs) parents participated in the study, parents’ perception of digital technology usage of preschool children in selected schools (YWCA Higher Secondary Girls School, Assemblies of GOD Church School, Silver dale Preparatory Girls High School and Zamzam Point Int. School & College) in Dhaka city, Bangladesh from January 2024 to November 2024. Data were collected by face to face interview with the parents by semi structured questionnaire. The participants were selected by convenient sampling procedure. Ethical permission was obtained from the Institutional Review Board(IRB) of BSMMU. Results: A total of 123 parents were participated in the study. Among them, 83.7% were women and 16.3% were men.60.2% of the mothers were between the ages of 20 and 30, and 78% of the fathers were between the ages of 20 and 30. 26.8% of mothers had completed H.S.C level, and 31.7% of fathers had a master's degree or more. Among the parents,48.8% Parents thought that children first used digital technology between the ages of 3 and 4 years. According to Parents perception, half of their children used digital technology for two hours a day. 69% children used digital technology for social media. According to Parents perception 59.3% of their children were generally well-behaved and usually did what adults asked, but 13.8% children often fight with other children. Among them, 36.6% of children had headaches,35.5% had body aches, 13.8% had decreased visual activity, 17.9% had lost weight and felt tired, and 40.7% were lack of sleep disruption. As a result, the children also experienced some psychological effects. 64.2% Parents thought that their children overused digital technology, which took away from their study time, 63.4% of children made them less creative, and 49.6% of children were a little bit restless. Conclusion: Digital technology use can influence a child's physical, psychological and social health. Parents influence children positive usage of technology. In order for children to adopt a healthy lifestyle, it is essential to monitor the amount of time, frequency, and content viewed while using technological devices and to ensure that children have or develop adequate opportunities for physical activity, healthy eating habits, proper sleep cycles, and supportive social relationships. Awareness program should be conducted about proper use of digital technology. Further studies involving larger sample size and addressing geographical variations are needed for generalizability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePacific Journal of Medical ResearchSame topicChild Development and Digital TechnologyFrench-language works237,207