Impacts of Parental Technoference on Parent-Child Relationships and Child Health and Developmental Outcomes: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: With increases in the ubiquity of cellphones, parental technoference poses a relevant concern for parent-child relationships (i.e., parent-child interactions, attachment and bonding), children's development (i.e., gross and fine motor, language, social, cognitive) and children’s health (i.e., psychological, biological). Parental technoference refers to disrupted interactions between a parent and their child due to a parent’s use of a technological device. Researchers have started to report associations between parental technoference and parent-child relationships (e.g., reduced parental responsiveness toward their child) and children’s health outcomes (e.g., increased risk for behavioral concerns). Although previous reviews have been conducted on parental technoference, our scoping review comprises the first comprehensive, systematic review on the impacts of parental technoference on parent-child relationships and children's health and development. Objective: We aim to map, describe and summarize existing evidence from published research articles on the impacts of parental technoference on parent-child relationships and child health and developmental outcomes and identify limitations in the studies or gaps in the literature. Inclusion criteria: This scoping review will include primary research studies and review papers (i.e., systematic, scoping) that evaluate the impacts of parental technoference on parent-child relationships and children's health and developmental outcomes. In our review, parents are defined as primary caregivers (i.e., biological, adopted, foster parents) of children under the age of 18 years. Methods: This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology. Databases will include APA PsycInfo, MEDLINE, Central, Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews, JBI EBP and Embase (OVID). CINAHL (Ebsco) and Scopus will also be searched. Grey and popular literature will be excluded, with the exception of dissertations. Studies will be written in English with no time limit. Two reviewers will screen titles, abstracts, and full texts of studies according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Articles will be appraised with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data will be extracted into a data charting table including; author(s), year of publication, country, research aim, methodology/design, population and sample size, variables/concepts and corresponding measures and main results. Data will mapped and presented in tables and figures along with a corresponding narrative summary. Significance: This review will illuminate the current state of evidence and identify gaps in the literature on the impacts of technoference on parent-child relationships and children’s health and development. The findings from this review will inform future research to enhance understanding of the impacts of parental technoference and aid in the development of interventions and programs to promote positive parent-child relationships and children’s health and development in an increasingly digital world.
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 | 0.012 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".