Digital technology promoting health for children and adolescents

Main message

In total 285 systematic reviews and 80 scoping reviews were identified. The majority of these were published after 2020 and almost all have a quantitative research approach. The 107 systematic reviews that were assessed as holding a low to moderate risk of bias are presented in the interactive map (länk).

In the interactive map the systematic reviews can be selected using the filtering options; digital technology, outcomes, intervention or test, who the intervention or test is aimed at and the area where the intervention or test was provided or used. Each systematic review can be accessed through the links in the interactive map.

Aim

The aim of this report was to identify systematic reviews for pre-specified areas of interest (the interactive map) by systematically assessing and categorizing all identified systematic reviews that focused on digital technology evaluation, with the purpose of promoting health and/or preventing illness in children and adolescents.

Method

A study protocol for this project was made a priori.

Inclusion criteria:

PICOs/PIROs

Population: Children and adolescents aged 0 to 20 years.
Intervention/Index test: Digital technology such as internet, films and videos aiming to promote health and/or prevent illness. We have categorized the digital technology into Information tools, Social tools, Feedback tools and Analysis tools, according to the WHO classification.
Control/Reference test: No intervention, or another intervention or test than the one in the intervention/index test group.
Outcome: Health or illness, of children and adolescents within the age of 0 to 20 years, that can be measured or described. We have categorized the outcome into Lifestyle, Mental health, Physical health, Oral health, Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR), Safety and violence prevention and Speech and communication.
Study design: Systematic reviews and scoping reviews that include quantitative-, qualitative- or mixed-method studies.

Language: English, Swedish, Norwegian or Danish

Publication period: From 2000 to January 2025.

Databases searched: Medline via OvidSP, PsycInfo via EBSCO, Scopus via Elsevier and International HTA-database

The PICO and PIRO for this interactive map, and categories used to classify the content in the map, were outlined by the project group.

An information specialist conducted a literature search in January 2025 (Appendix 1). The systematic reviews that were deemed relevant were assessed regarding their risk of bias using a modified version of the AMSTAR tool. The systematic reviews with low to moderate risk of bias were categorized and included in the interactive map (länk). The systematic reviews with high risk of bias and those that were identified as relevant scoping reviews were categorized and listed in appendix 3 and 2, respectively.

The screening of the systematic reviews, the assessment of their risk of bias, the categorization of the systematic reviews and scoping reviews were performed independently by two project leaders. Any disagreement was solved by discussion.

The selection of studies is outlined in the flow chart in Figure 1.

The project plan was reviewed by SBU’s internal quality assurance group and SBU’s scientific advisory board. The report was reviewed by an external expert.

Results

A total of 107 relevant systematic reviews with low to moderate risk of bias were identified and provide the basis for the interactive map.

Most of the identified systematic reviews have investigated promoting or preventing effects on outcomes that revolves lifestyle or physical health, for example stimulation of physical activity and healthy eating habits, or interventions reducing the use of tobacco, alcohol or drugs. Furthermore, we also identified systematic reviews that studied interventions to promote mental health, sexual and reproductive health and rights, safety and violence prevention, speech and communication, and oral health.

The digital technologies studied are mainly interventions categorized as information-, feedback- or social tools. The studied platforms for the digital techniques were not described in the systematic reviews. However, looking at their included studies, it appears that the most common platforms studied are those that can be categorized as health care and leisure. School environment and dental care clinics are also platforms where some of the interventions are provided or used.

Link to the interactive map

Conflicts of Interest

In accordance with SBU’s requirements, the experts and scientific reviewers participating in this project have submitted statements about conflicts of interest. These documents are available at SBU’s secretariat. SBU has determined that the conditions described in the submissions are compatible with SBU’s requirements for objectivity and impartiality.

The full report in Swedish