Parenting Journal · Volume 2 · Issue 4 · Licensed source edition
The association between parental phubbing and pathological digital use among children and adolescents: a meta-analysis of Chinese samples
Originally published 2026-09-04 · Frontiers in Psychology
Frontiers Media SA · DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1883060 ↗
Editorial reading guide · Respect
How often does my phone interrupt a conversation my child is trying to start?
The synthesis examines parental attention during interactions, a concrete behavior relevant to whether children feel listened to.
Who was studied?
Chinese samples included in a meta-analysis on parental phone distraction.
Age / stage: Childhood and adolescence
Read with three questions
- How did the included studies define or measure a parent diverting attention to a phone?
- How much variation across studies remains after the results are combined?
- How often does my phone interrupt a conversation my child is trying to start?
Keep the limits in view
The estimate combines studies with different measures and samples. A pooled finding does not identify the result to expect for a particular family.
The text below is the original article’s licensed repository edition. Its wording is not rewritten. Use the Paper Agent beside the text to locate evidence; open the source for figures, tables and complete context.
Opening the verified paper and agent…
Checking the article identity, license record, and saved source text.
Open the repository recordAttribution & reuse
Follow the original.
Original authorship, publication date, journal and DOI are preserved. This issue’s TRICK placement and reading questions are editorial additions, not claims made by the original authors.
Li Feng; Shuanglong Li (2026). The association between parental phubbing and pathological digital use among children and adolescents: a meta-analysis of Chinese samples Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1883060
Permissions checked against the saved article notice; repository publication notices screened 2026-11-04. This is not a new peer-review decision. The source authors and publishers are not represented as endorsing this issue.