Cited by 148Child Development and Digital TechnologyImpact of Technology on AdolescentsPhysical Activity and Health

An umbrella review of the benefits and risks associated with youths’ interactions with electronic screens

Open access
Sanders, Taren, Noetel, Michael, Parker, Philip, Del Pozo Cruz, Borja, Biddle, Stuart, Ronto, Rimante, Hulteen, Ryan, Parker, Rhiannon +12 more·2023·Nature Human Behaviour

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

The influence of electronic screens on the health of children and adolescents and their education is not well understood. In this prospectively registered umbrella review (PROSPERO identifier CRD42017076051 ), we harmonized effects from 102 meta-analyses (2,451 primary studies; 1,937,501 participants) of screen time and outcomes. In total, 43 effects from 32 meta-analyses met our criteria for statistical certainty. Meta-analyses of associations between screen use and outcomes showed small-to-moderate effects (range: r = -0.14 to 0.33). In education, results were mixed; for example, screen use was negatively associated with literacy (r = -0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.20 to -0.09, P ≤ 0.001, k = 38, N = 18,318), but this effect was positive when parents watched with their children (r = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.02 to 0.28, P = 0.028, k = 12, N = 6,083). In health, we found evidence for several small negative associations; for example, social media was associated with depression (r = 0.12, 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.19, P ≤ 0.001, k = 12, N = 93,740). Limitations of our review include the limited number of studies for each outcome, medium-to-high risk of bias in 95 out of 102 included meta-analyses and high heterogeneity (17 out of 22 in education and 20 out of 21 in health with I 2 > 50%). We recommend that caregivers and policymakers carefully weigh the evidence for potential harms and benefits of specific types of screen use.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41562-023-01712-8

Cites

255 of 255 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The finding of no significant influence of smartphone bans on academic performance contradicts numerous studies indicating that smartphone use has a negative effect on academic performance.

    “Overall, there is no significant influence of a smartphone ban here, which contradicts numerous studies indicating that smartphone use has a negative effect on academic performance [5,31].”

    From To Ban or Not to Ban? A Rapid Review on the Impact of Smartphone Bans in Schools on Social Well-Being and Academic Performance (2024) · cites this paper as [5]

    The Education Outcomes section (page unavailable) reports negative associations between some forms of screen use and learning or literacy, supporting the broader concern about educational outcomes. It does not establish that smartphone use specifically causes poorer academic performance. The finding about the smartphone ban is the citing authors’ own result, not a finding attributed to this review. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • There are numerous indications that the use of digital media not only hinders learning processes, but can even prevent them.

    “On the other hand, however, there are numerous indications that the use of digital media not only hinders learning processes, but can even prevent them.”

    From To Ban or Not to Ban? A Rapid Review on the Impact of Smartphone Bans in Schools on Social Well-Being and Academic Performance (2024) · cites this paper as [5]

    The Education Outcomes section reports small negative associations between learning and general screen use, television viewing, and video games. It does not show that digital media prevents learning, and it also reports positive associations for educational screen uses. The claim turns associations into a causal assertion and omits the review’s important distinction between types of use. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Findings from meta-analyses on cognition and digital media are inconsistent.

    “Meta-analytic studies are mixed.82”
  • It remains unclear whether specific modalities of screen time are differentially associated with adolescent mental health outcomes.

    “Furthermore, it remains unclear whether specific modalities of screen time (e.g., device type, digital media type, and specific websites and applications) are differentially associated with adolescent mental health outcomes, prompting a call for researchers to conduct more nuanced measurements and analyses of screen use that focus on the contents, contexts, and environments in which digital media”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 256 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. [2]2. Bell, A. N. The sanitarian. vol. 11 (AN Bell, 1883).
  2. [10]10. Warburton, W. & Highfield, K. Children and technology in a smart device world. in Children, Families and Communities 195-221 (Oxford University Press, 2017).
  3. [25]25. Pollock, M., Fernandes, R., Becker, L., Pieper, D. & Hartling, L. Chapter V: Overviews of Reviews. in Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (eds.
  4. [28]28. Abrami, P., Borohkovski, E. & Lysenko, L. The effects of ABRACADABRA on reading outcomes: A meta-analysis of applied field research. Journal of Interactive Learning Research 26, 337-367 (2015).
  5. [108]108. Hao, T., Wang, Z. & Ardasheva, Y. Technology-Assisted Vocabulary Learning for EFL Learners: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 14, 645-667 (2021).
  6. [126]126. Lee, J., Piao, M., Byun, A. & Kim, J. A systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention for pediatric obesity using mobile technology. Nursing Informatics 2016 225, 491-494 (2016).
  7. [131]131. Liao, Y.-K. Effects of Computer-Assisted Instruction on Cognitive Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Research on Computing in Education 24, 367-80 (1992).
  8. [137]137. Liu, D., Baumeister, R. F., Yang, C.-c. & Hu, B. Digital Communication Media Use and Psychological Well-Being: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 24, 259-273 (2019).
  9. [146]146. Marciano, L., Schulz, P. J. & Camerini, A.-L. Cyberbullying Perpetration and Victimization in Youth: A Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Studies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 25, 163-181 (2020).
  10. [195]195. Soo Jung, K. & Yan Ping, X. A Synthesis of Computer-Assisted Mathematical Word Problem-Solving Instruction for Students with Learning Disabilities or Difficulties. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal 20, 27-45 (2022).
  11. [243]243. Seetharaman, G. W., Jeff Horwitz and Deepa. Facebook Knows Instagram Is Toxic for Teen Girls, Company Documents Show. Wall Street Journal (2021).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sanders, T., Noetel, M., Parker, P., Del Pozo Cruz, B., Biddle, S., Ronto, R., Hulteen, R., Parker, R., Thomas, G., De Cocker, K., Salmon, J., Hesketh, K., Weeks, N., Arnott, H., Devine, E., Vasconcellos, R., Pagano, R., Sherson, J., Conigrave, J., & Lonsdale, C.
Affiliations
  • Australian Catholic University (AU)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • University of Southern Queensland (AU)
  • Louisiana State University (US)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • Deakin University (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Sanders, Taren
Venue
Nature Human Behaviour
Published
2023-11-13
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
82-99
ISSN
2397-3374 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4388627211
Cited by
148
References
256
Citations by year
2026: 62 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 40
FWCI
110.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Human Behaviour (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (publishedVersion)
  • Jyväskylä University Digital Archive (University of Jyväskylä) (submittedVersion)
  • Civil War Book Review (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Child Development and Digital Technology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
Keywords
screen time, electronic screens, youth, children and adolescents, educational outcomes, literacy, social media, depression, parental co-viewing, health outcomes
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Humans, Parents, Bias, Risk Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review