Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Protocol

Impacts of parental technoference on parent-child relationships and child health and developmental outcomes: a scoping review protocol

Authors: Lyndsay Jerusha Mackay, Jelena Komanchuk, K. Alix Hayden, Nicole Letourneau

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

With increases in the use of technological devices worldwide, parental technoference is a potential threat to the quality of parent-child relationships and children’s health and development. Parental technoference refers to disrupted interactions between a parent and child due to a parent’s use of a technological device. The aims of this scoping review are to map, describe, and summarize the existing evidence from published research studies on the impacts of parental technoference on parent-child relationships and children’s health and development and to identify the limitations in the studies and gaps in the literature.

Methods

This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology. A search for relevant research studies will be undertaken in 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. This review will include primary research studies and review papers published in English with no time limit that identify the impacts of technoference on parent-child relationships and child health and developmental outcomes. Parent participants include primary caregivers, either biological, adopted, or foster parents, of children under the age of 18 who engage in technoference. Two reviewers will independently screen the titles, abstracts, and full texts of studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion with a third researcher. 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 be presented in tables and figures accompanied by a narrative summary.

Discussion

The goal of this scoping review is to present an overview of the evidence on the impacts of parental technoference on parent-child relationships and child and health developmental outcomes, highlighting the current risk of children of today. It will identify gaps in the literature, inform future research, advise recommendations for parents on technological device use, and possibly guide the development of interventions aimed at addressing parental technoference.

Trial registration

Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
8.
go back to reference Ali RA, Alnuaimi KM, Al-Jarrah IA. Examining the associations between smartphone use and mother-infant bonding and family functioning: a survey design. Nurs Health Sci. 2020;22:235–42.CrossRef Ali RA, Alnuaimi KM, Al-Jarrah IA. Examining the associations between smartphone use and mother-infant bonding and family functioning: a survey design. Nurs Health Sci. 2020;22:235–42.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Poulain T, Ludwig J, Hiemisch A, Hilberta A, Kiess W. Media use of mothers, media use of children, and parent-child interaction are related to behavioral difficulties and strengths of children. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16:4651–64.CrossRef Poulain T, Ludwig J, Hiemisch A, Hilberta A, Kiess W. Media use of mothers, media use of children, and parent-child interaction are related to behavioral difficulties and strengths of children. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16:4651–64.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Mangan E, Leavy JE, Jancey J. Mobile device use when caring for children 0-5 years: a naturalistic playground study. Health Promot J Austr. 2017;29:337–43.CrossRef Mangan E, Leavy JE, Jancey J. Mobile device use when caring for children 0-5 years: a naturalistic playground study. Health Promot J Austr. 2017;29:337–43.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference McDaniel BT, Coyne SM. “Technoference”: the interference of technology in couple relationships and implications for women’s personal and relational well-being. Psychol Pop Media Cult. 2016;5(1):85–98.CrossRef McDaniel BT, Coyne SM. “Technoference”: the interference of technology in couple relationships and implications for women’s personal and relational well-being. Psychol Pop Media Cult. 2016;5(1):85–98.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Qiao L, Liu Q. The effet of technoference in parent-child relationships on adoescent smartphone addiction: the role of cognitive factors. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2020;118:1–9.CrossRef Qiao L, Liu Q. The effet of technoference in parent-child relationships on adoescent smartphone addiction: the role of cognitive factors. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2020;118:1–9.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference McDaniel BT. Parent distraction with phones, reasons for use, and impacts on parenting and child outcomes: a review of the emerging research. Hum Behav Emerg Technol. 2019;1:72–80.CrossRef McDaniel BT. Parent distraction with phones, reasons for use, and impacts on parenting and child outcomes: a review of the emerging research. Hum Behav Emerg Technol. 2019;1:72–80.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Stockdale LA, Porter CL, Coyne SM, Essig LW, Booth M, Keenan-Kroff S, et al. Infants’ response to a mobile phone modified still-face paradigm: links to maternal behaviors and beliefs regarding technoference. Infancy. 2020;25:571–92.CrossRef Stockdale LA, Porter CL, Coyne SM, Essig LW, Booth M, Keenan-Kroff S, et al. Infants’ response to a mobile phone modified still-face paradigm: links to maternal behaviors and beliefs regarding technoference. Infancy. 2020;25:571–92.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Programs NCAST. In: Oxford M, Findlay D, editors. Caregiver/parent-child interaction teaching manual. Seattle, WA: University of Washington; 2013. Programs NCAST. In: Oxford M, Findlay D, editors. Caregiver/parent-child interaction teaching manual. Seattle, WA: University of Washington; 2013.
17.
go back to reference Kennell J, McGrath S. Starting the process of mother-infant bonding. ACTA Pediatr. 2005;94:775–8.CrossRef Kennell J, McGrath S. Starting the process of mother-infant bonding. ACTA Pediatr. 2005;94:775–8.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Bowlby J. A secure base: parent-child attachment and healthy human development. New York: Basic Books; 1988. Bowlby J. A secure base: parent-child attachment and healthy human development. New York: Basic Books; 1988.
19.
go back to reference Sumner G, Spietz A. NCAST caregiver/parent-child interaction teaching manual. Seattle, WA: NCAST Publications, University of Washington; 1994. Sumner G, Spietz A. NCAST caregiver/parent-child interaction teaching manual. Seattle, WA: NCAST Publications, University of Washington; 1994.
20.
go back to reference National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. Vibrant and health kids: Aligning science, practice, and policy to advance health equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2019. National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. Vibrant and health kids: Aligning science, practice, and policy to advance health equity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2019.
21.
go back to reference Anderson SE, Keim SA. Parent-child interaction, self-regulation, and obesity prevention in early childhood. Curr Obes Rep. 2016;5(2):192–200.CrossRef Anderson SE, Keim SA. Parent-child interaction, self-regulation, and obesity prevention in early childhood. Curr Obes Rep. 2016;5(2):192–200.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Letourneau N, Kozyrskyj A, Cosic N, Ntanda H, Anis L, Hart M, et al. Maternal sensitivity and social support protect against childhood atopic dermatitis. Allergy, Asthma Immunol Res. 2017;13(1):1–14. Letourneau N, Kozyrskyj A, Cosic N, Ntanda H, Anis L, Hart M, et al. Maternal sensitivity and social support protect against childhood atopic dermatitis. Allergy, Asthma Immunol Res. 2017;13(1):1–14.
23.
go back to reference Knitter B, Zemp M. Digital family life: a systematic review of the impact of parental smartphone use on parent-child interactions. Digital. Psychology. 2020. Knitter B, Zemp M. Digital family life: a systematic review of the impact of parental smartphone use on parent-child interactions. Digital. Psychology. 2020.
24.
go back to reference McDaniel BT, Radesky J. Technoference: parent distraction with technology and associations with child behavior problems. Child De. 2018;89(1):100–9. McDaniel BT, Radesky J. Technoference: parent distraction with technology and associations with child behavior problems. Child De. 2018;89(1):100–9.
25.
go back to reference Elias N, Lemish D, Dalyot S, Floesgel D. “Where are you?” An observational exploration of parental technoference in public places in the US and Israel. J Child Media. 2020. Elias N, Lemish D, Dalyot S, Floesgel D. “Where are you?” An observational exploration of parental technoference in public places in the US and Israel. J Child Media. 2020.
26.
go back to reference Klaus M, Kennell JH. Parent-infant bonding. St. Louis: Mosby; 1982. Klaus M, Kennell JH. Parent-infant bonding. St. Louis: Mosby; 1982.
27.
go back to reference Kinsey CB, Hupcey JE. State of the science of maternal-infant bonding: a principle-based concept analysis. Midwifery. 2014;29(12):1–14. Kinsey CB, Hupcey JE. State of the science of maternal-infant bonding: a principle-based concept analysis. Midwifery. 2014;29(12):1–14.
28.
go back to reference Hertzman C. The state of child development in Canada: are we moving toward, or away from, equity from the start? Paediatr Child Health. 2009;14(10):673–6.CrossRef Hertzman C. The state of child development in Canada: are we moving toward, or away from, equity from the start? Paediatr Child Health. 2009;14(10):673–6.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Keating DP, Hertzman C. In: Keating DP, Hertzman C, editors. Developmental health and the wealth of nations: social, biological, and educational dynamics. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 1999. Keating DP, Hertzman C. In: Keating DP, Hertzman C, editors. Developmental health and the wealth of nations: social, biological, and educational dynamics. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 1999.
30.
go back to reference Grantham-McGregor S, Cheung YB, Cueto S, Glewwe P, Richter L, Strupp B. Developmental potential in the first 5 years for children in developing countries. Lancet. 2007;369(9555):60–70.CrossRef Grantham-McGregor S, Cheung YB, Cueto S, Glewwe P, Richter L, Strupp B. Developmental potential in the first 5 years for children in developing countries. Lancet. 2007;369(9555):60–70.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Caring for kids. Your child’s development: what to expect: canadian Paediatric Society. 2019. Caring for kids. Your child’s development: what to expect: canadian Paediatric Society. 2019.
32.
go back to reference McDaniel BT, Radesky JS. Technoference: longitudinal associations between parent technology use, parenting stress, and child behavior problems. Pediatr Res. 2018;84:210–8.CrossRef McDaniel BT, Radesky JS. Technoference: longitudinal associations between parent technology use, parenting stress, and child behavior problems. Pediatr Res. 2018;84:210–8.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Beamish N, Fisher J, Rowe H. Parents’ use of mobile computing devices, caregiving and the social and emotional development of children: a systematic review of the evidence. Australas Psychiatr. 2019;27(2):132–43.CrossRef Beamish N, Fisher J, Rowe H. Parents’ use of mobile computing devices, caregiving and the social and emotional development of children: a systematic review of the evidence. Australas Psychiatr. 2019;27(2):132–43.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:143–50.CrossRef Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:143–50.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.CrossRef Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):69–78.CrossRef Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):69–78.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin E, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.CrossRef Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin E, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Frandsen TF, Nielsen MFB, Lindhartdt CL, Eriksen MB. Using the full PICO model as a search tool for systematic reviews resulted in lower recall for some PICO elements. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;127:69–75.CrossRef Frandsen TF, Nielsen MFB, Lindhartdt CL, Eriksen MB. Using the full PICO model as a search tool for systematic reviews resulted in lower recall for some PICO elements. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;127:69–75.CrossRef
40.
42.
go back to reference Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.CrossRef Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.CrossRef
43.
go back to reference Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, the CONSORT group. CONSORT Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med. 2010;8(18):1–9. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, the CONSORT group. CONSORT Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med. 2010;8(18):1–9.
Metadata
Title
Impacts of parental technoference on parent-child relationships and child health and developmental outcomes: a scoping review protocol
Authors
Lyndsay Jerusha Mackay
Jelena Komanchuk
K. Alix Hayden
Nicole Letourneau
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-01918-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Systematic Reviews 1/2022 Go to the issue