Cited by 154Child Development and Digital TechnologyImpact of Technology on AdolescentsPhysical Activity and Health

Virtually impossible: limiting Australian children and adolescents daily screen based media use

Open access
Houghton, Stephen, Hunter, Simon C, Rosenberg, Michael, Wood, Lisa, Zadow, Corinne, Martin, Karen, Shilton, Trevor·2015·BMC Public Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Paediatric recommendations to limit children's and adolescents' screen based media use (SBMU) to less than two hours per day appear to have gone unheeded. Given the associated adverse physical and mental health outcomes of SBMU it is understandable that concern is growing worldwide. However, because the majority of studies measuring SBMU have focused on TV viewing, computer use, video game playing, or a combination of these the true extent of total SBMU (including non-sedentary hand held devices) and time spent on specific screen activities remains relatively unknown. This study assesses the amount of time Australian children and adolescents spend on all types of screens and specific screen activities. METHODS: We administered an online instrument specifically developed to gather data on all types of SBMU and SBMU activities to 2,620 (1373 males and 1247 females) 8 to 16 year olds from 25 Australian government and non-government primary and secondary schools. RESULTS: We found that 45% of 8 year olds to 80% of 16 year olds exceeded the recommended < 2 hours per day for SBMU. A series of hierarchical linear models demonstrated different relationships between the degree to which total SBMU and SBMU on specific activities (TV viewing, Gaming, Social Networking, and Web Use) exceeded the < 2 hours recommendation in relation to sex and age. CONCLUSIONS: Current paediatric recommendations pertaining to SBMU may no longer be tenable because screen based media are central in the everyday lives of children and adolescents. In any reappraisal of SBMU exposure times, researchers, educators and health professionals need to take cognizance of the extent to which SBMU differs across specific screen activity, sex, and age.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2458-15-5

Cites

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?

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 60 · Cited by 154

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/15/5/prepub

Authors
Houghton, S., Hunter, S. C., Rosenberg, M., Wood, L., Zadow, C., Martin, K., & Shilton, T.
Affiliations
  • The University of Western Australia (AU)
  • University of Strathclyde (GB)
Corresponding author
Houghton, Stephen
Venue
BMC Public Health
Published
2015-01-22
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
5-5
ISSN
1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1930383062
Cited by
154
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 2
FWCI
75.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Strathprints: The University of Strathclyde institutional repository (University of Strathclyde) (acceptedVersion)
  • ResearchOnline (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • ResearchOnline (Glasgow Caledonian University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Healthway (22951, 23347)
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-based media use, children, adolescents, daily screen time, screen time recommendations, television viewing, video gaming, social networking, internet use, handheld devices, sex differences, age differences, Australian youth
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Australia, Child, Computers, Female, Humans, Male, Pediatrics, Television, Time Factors, Guidelines as Topic, Video Games, Guideline Adherence

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