↓ Skip to main content

The mediating role of the home environment in relation to parental educational level and preschool children’s screen time: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
199 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The mediating role of the home environment in relation to parental educational level and preschool children’s screen time: a cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Public Health, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4694-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Suvi Määttä, Riikka Kaukonen, Henna Vepsäläinen, Elviira Lehto, Anna Ylönen, Carola Ray, Maijaliisa Erkkola, Eva Roos

Abstract

Previous studies suggest that preschoolers from low socioeconomic backgrounds engage in more screen time. Still, the factors in the social and physical home environment driving these differences in preschool children's screen time are poorly understood. This study examines potential home environment mediators in the associations between parental educational level and preschoolers' screen time. A total of 864 children aged 3-6 years and their parents participated in a cross-sectional DAGIS study in 2015-2016. Parents recorded their children's screen time in a diary (N = 823). For the analyses, the daily average screen time at home was calculated. Parental questionnaires (N = 808) assessed educational level and eight social and physical environment factors in the home (i.e., descriptive norm for children's screen time, parental screen use in front of children, parental importance for limiting children's screen time, parental attitude toward societal pressures for children's screen time, access to screens at home, parental self-efficacy for limiting children's screen time, satisfaction of children's screen time, and rules for limiting children's screen time). Parental education was grouped into low, middle, and high education. The associations were tested by conducting mediation analyses adjusted by season and children's sex and age. The significant mediators in the single-mediator models were included in the final multiple-mediator models. Of the potential eight mediators, the following four had a significant indirect association: descriptive norm for children's screen time, parental screen use in front of children, parental importance for limiting children's screen time, and parental attitude toward societal pressures for children's screen time. Parents with high education had lower descriptive norm and used fewer screens in front of children compared to parents with middle or low education, and in turn, these factors were associated with less screen time among children from parents with a higher education level. Parents with high education placed greater importance on limiting children's screen time and felt less societal pressures about children's screen time compared to parents with low education, and in turn, these factors were associated with less screen time among children from parents with a higher education level. Our study recognized multiple modifiable mediators in the associations between parental education and preschool children's screen time. When aiming to diminish socioeconomic status differences in preschool children's screen time, the focus should be on parental role models, attitudes, and norm related to children's screen time.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 199 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 199 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 33 17%
Student > Master 31 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 9%
Researcher 13 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 7%
Other 28 14%
Unknown 63 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 28 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 9%
Psychology 17 9%
Sports and Recreations 10 5%
Other 33 17%
Unknown 73 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 26 February 2018.
All research outputs
#2,985,896
of 25,579,912 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#3,619
of 17,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,150
of 324,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#58
of 178 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,579,912 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,705 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 324,981 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 178 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.