Major review links screen use to mental health problems
An analysis of 23 previous meta-analyses finds associations with several developmental and behavioural outcomes, but does not prove causation.
A new review study brings together research into screen use and children’s development. The analysis covers 23 meta-analyses with data on more than 2.8 million children in 64 countries and finds associations with, among other things, emotional and social problems.
The study appeared online on Monday in JAMA Pediatrics. The researchers included meta-analyses of population studies among children up to and including the age of eighteen. The underlying literature was searched up to November 2025. As this is an umbrella review, results from previously pooled studies are set alongside one another again.
The researchers found that more screen use was associated with lower average scores for school performance and language development. They also saw associations with internalising problems, such as anxiety or depressive symptoms, externalising behaviour, emotional problems and problems with peers. The strength of these associations varied according to the type of screen use and the child’s age.
No association was visible for all outcomes. The analysis found no statistical association with executive functions, mathematics, science or reading. The result was also inconclusive for prosocial behaviour. This makes the picture more complex than the general conclusion that screens are always harmful.
A separate study in BMC Pediatrics looked at 681 schoolchildren. The researchers distinguished three patterns: a group with predominantly screen use, a balanced group and a group that engaged in relatively many screen-free activities. On average, the first group had poorer mental health and well-being outcomes than the other two groups.
Both studies primarily measure associations. Children who spend a great deal of time in front of a screen may, for example, already have had psychological symptoms and therefore engage more often in screen-based activities. Sleep, the home situation, social contacts, physical activity and media content may also play a role. The results therefore do not show that a particular amount of screen time causes symptoms in an individual child.
The authors do see support for the so-called displacement hypothesis: intensive screen use can displace time that would otherwise be spent on family conversations, sport or other activities. According to JAMA, the results may contribute to guidelines and prevention, but they do not provide a personal diagnosis or treatment advice. Parents and healthcare providers should therefore not assess individual situations solely on the basis of screen time.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The numbers, study design and main findings were checked directly against the two scientific publications. The text explicitly distinguishes between associations and causal conclusions and contains no personal medical advice.
- confirmed The JAMA review study includes 23 meta-analyses with data on 2,817,252 children from 64 countries. — These figures appear in the study’s summary. source
- confirmed The analysis found associations with lower school performance and language development. — The main results mention both outcomes. source
- confirmed The analysis found associations with internalising, externalising and emotional problems. — These outcomes appear in the results and key points. source
- confirmed There was no statistical association with executive functions, mathematics, science or reading. — These domains are explicitly identified as not being associated. source
- confirmed The BMC study included 681 schoolchildren and distinguished three usage patterns. — The article’s methods and results mention the sample and three classes. source
- confirmed The studies do not prove a causal relationship. — This is a methodological interpretation of observational associations and is not quoted as a direct conclusion from a single source. source
Editor's note
The JAMA study is a peer-reviewed review of 23 meta-analyses; the BMC article is peer-reviewed but is still available online as an accepted early version. Both show associations, not proven causation.Sources
More on this in Dutch media
- NU.nl — „schermgebruik kinderen”
- De Telegraaf — „schermgebruik kinderen”
- AD — „schermgebruik kinderen”