↓ Skip to main content

Association Between Portable Screen-Based Media Device Access or Use and Sleep Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Pediatrics, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#2 of 1,396)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
210 news outlets
blogs
11 blogs
twitter
519 tweeters
facebook
25 Facebook pages
googleplus
4 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
Title
Association Between Portable Screen-Based Media Device Access or Use and Sleep Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Published in
JAMA Pediatrics, October 2016
DOI 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.2341
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ben Carter, Philippa Rees, Lauren Hale, Darsharna Bhattacharjee, Mandar S. Paradkar, Carter, Ben, Rees, Philippa, Hale, Lauren, Bhattacharjee, Darsharna, Paradkar, Mandar S, Mandar Paradkar

Abstract

Sleep is vital to children's biopsychosocial development. Inadequate sleep quantity and quality is a public health concern with an array of detrimental health outcomes. Portable mobile and media devices have become a ubiquitous part of children's lives and may affect their sleep duration and quality. To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine whether there is an association between portable screen-based media device (eg, cell phones and tablet devices) access or use in the sleep environment and sleep outcomes. A search strategy consisting of gray literature and 24 Medical Subject Headings was developed in Ovid MEDLINE and adapted for other databases between January 1, 2011, and June 15, 2015. Searches of the published literature were conducted across 12 databases. No language restriction was applied. The analysis included randomized clinical trials, cohort studies, and cross-sectional study designs. Inclusion criteria were studies of school-age children between 6 and 19 years. Exclusion criteria were studies of stationary exposures, such as televisions or desktop or personal computers, or studies investigating electromagnetic radiation. Of 467 studies identified, 20 cross-sectional studies were assessed for methodological quality. Two reviewers independently extracted data. The primary outcomes were inadequate sleep quantity, poor sleep quality, and excessive daytime sleepiness, studied according to an a priori protocol. Twenty studies were included, and their quality was assessed. The studies involved 125 198 children (mean [SD] age, 14.5 [2.2] years; 50.1% male). There was a strong and consistent association between bedtime media device use and inadequate sleep quantity (odds ratio [OR], 2.17; 95% CI, 1.42-3.32) (P < .001, I2 = 90%), poor sleep quality (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.14-1.88) (P = .003, I2 = 76%), and excessive daytime sleepiness (OR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.32-5.61) (P = .007, I2 = 50%). In addition, children who had access to (but did not use) media devices at night were more likely to have inadequate sleep quantity (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.39-2.31) (P < .001, I2 = 64%), poor sleep quality (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.11-2.10) (P = .009, I2 = 74%), and excessive daytime sleepiness (OR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.54-3.35) (P < .001, I2 = 24%). To date, this study is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the association of access to and the use of media devices with sleep outcomes. Bedtime access to and use of a media device were significantly associated with the following: inadequate sleep quantity, poor sleep quality, and excessive daytime sleepiness. An integrated approach among teachers, health care professionals, and parents is required to minimize device access at bedtime, and future research is needed to evaluate the influence of the devices on sleep hygiene and outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 519 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 54 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 25%
Other 8 15%
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 15%
Student > Master 7 13%
Other 10 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 29%
Psychology 10 18%
Social Sciences 7 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 11%
Other 10 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2098. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 June 2017.
All research outputs
#241
of 7,949,640 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Pediatrics
#2
of 1,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15
of 238,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Pediatrics
#1
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,949,640 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,396 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 66.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 238,287 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.