ArticleHealth promotion international2026
Bombarded? Child's-eye views of smartphone-based game application advertising: objective insights from Aotearoa New Zealand.
Article in Health promotion international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Children's engagement with smartphone-based (online) game applications is commonplace. There appears to be no objective evidence base for children's exposure to advertising within game-apps captured in real-time by children themselves. This study aimed to objectively explore the nature and extent of young adolescents' exposure to smartphone game-app-based advertising. Sixty-six children aged 11-13 years (mean age = 12.7, SD = 0.79) from 16 schools in the Wellington region of New Zealand used Zoom video teleconferencing software to record real-time, screen-shared internet use for four consecutive days. Forty-one participants recorded game-app use which was analysed for in-game advertising. Participants responded to a single catch-all question inquiring about changes they would make to the online world. Responses mentioning advertising were analysed. On average, children who used game-apps recorded 206 minutes (3.4 hours) of online smartphone use over the four-day study period and spent 39 minutes using game-apps (11.4 minutes/hour, or 19% of their total online time). Per hour spent gaming, on average, participants were exposed to advertising for 9.7 minutes (16.2% of their hourly gaming time) and screen-recorded 22.9 ads. Primarily, ads for other smartphone game applications were advertised within the games (n = 263, 38.2% of all recorded ads). Most other advertising appeared more likely to be of interest, or more suited to adult consumers (e.g. finance and real estate). While 'playing' using smartphone game-apps, children were exposed to a high volume of advertising, including advertising for alcohol. Unprompted, one-third (n = 22) of participants mentioned online advertising within their responses and indicated that they wanted to see changes made to online advertising. All responses portrayed online advertising negatively. Children, who are some of the most susceptible to digital advertising, must be protected from advertising online in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.