TenMore

News

Published

A review of what helps reduce screen time, and what it does not prove.

A new review of earlier research separates cutting minutes from helping a child who cannot stop. It also says those earlier reviews are low confidence, so it is not a promise that one method will work in your house.

What changed

On October 25, 2026, European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry published an umbrella review by Santos and colleagues. An umbrella review does not follow a new group of children. It summarizes systematic reviews that already exist. The authors included 36 of those reviews. Together they covered 1,023 records of underlying studies, or 672 unique studies after overlap was removed. The children and adolescents ranged from birth to age 19. The authors last searched for reviews on August 3, 2026.

They treat two problems as different. Screen time is time spent using electronic or digital media, such as a television, phone, tablet, or computer. Problematic media use is a risky, excessive, or impulsive pattern tied to harm, or to trouble functioning physically, emotionally, or socially. A high number of minutes is not, by itself, problematic use.

What the included reviews tended to report:

  • Programs aimed at screen time itself generally reduced time more than programs that treated screen time as one goal among several health goals.
  • Family and parent strategies, and technological monitoring, showed favorable results for cutting screen time.
  • Psychosocial and behavioral approaches, and exercise, showed favorable results for problematic use.
  • Results differed by the child’s age, how long the program lasted, what it included, and who took part.

One comparison in the paper comes from a review the authors cite as Wu and colleagues. The pooled effect was larger when a program targeted screen time alone (standardized mean difference −0.69) than when it targeted several behaviors at once (−0.13). Those figures are from that earlier review. They are not a count of minutes, and they are not a new experiment.

The authors rate the evidence as weak. On the AMSTAR 2 checklist, they rated 21 of the 36 reviews critically low confidence and 15 low confidence. None was moderate or high. They say more rigorous studies, with longer follow-up, are needed before anyone can say which strategies last. They also note that some favorable results for electronic controls come from devices built for television, and that it is less clear how those results apply when a child uses a phone across many apps.

What you can do

Use the paper as a check on the plan you already have. It did not test TenMore, Apple Screen Time, or any other product you can download.

  • If the goal is fewer minutes, make that the goal. The reviews found clearer results when screen time was the target, and when parents were involved or a monitoring tool was used. A short family agreement can name the window. A schedule can hold it. Apple’s time controls and TenMore are two ways to do that on an iPhone or iPad. The paper does not say either one was studied.
  • If stopping is the hard part, treat that as a different problem from the daily total. The reviews found more favorable results for problematic use from psychological and behavioral approaches, family involvement, and physical activity. A limit can still mark the end of the time. It does not teach the skill. Our everyday habits start with sleep, meals, and a plan for what happens when time ends.
  • Get help if the pattern is stuck. The tips page says that if screen use keeps affecting sleep, school, relationships, or your child’s well-being, talk with a pediatrician or a qualified child-health professional. That is a different step from tightening a timer.
  • Keep the earlier review in mind. The October 4 review was about health and development associations, not about which programs reduced use. This paper does not replace it, and it does not prove that a particular limit will last.

Source