Every family is trying to find the right balance with screens. We hear it all the time: How much is too much? What actually matters?
A new UK report offers a more helpful way to think about it, shifting the focus from limits to what kids need more of in their day.
At Nex, that’s a conversation we care deeply about. We asked our Chief Pediatric Advisor, Dr. Emily Greenwald, to break down what this research means in real life–and how families can move from screen limits to something more meaningful.
The UK Department for Education and Department of Health and Social Care recently released a major independent report on screen use in children under five, led by the Early Years Screen Time Advisory Group (EYSTAG).
As a pediatrician and Chief Pediatric Advisor for Nex Playground, I read this report with two central questions:
The report does not conclude that screens are universally harmful, rather it does something more nuanced and more important. It reframes the conversation.
Screens are not the primary problem, displacement is.
Time spent on screens can crowd out the experiences that matter most in early childhood:
And as pediatricians (and parents), we know those are the foundations of development.
What’s striking is how closely this aligns with the most recent guidance from the American Academy of Pediatrics. Their 2026 policy moves away from rigid screen time limits and toward a broader view of the digital ecosystem, emphasizing how design, content, and family context shape outcomes.
In other words, both reports are saying the same thing:
It’s not about screen time. It’s whether screen use aligns with what we know supports child development.
Across the report, a few themes are remarkably consistent:
1. Human interaction drives development
Young children learn best through responsive, back-and-forth engagement with caregivers, not passive viewing. We have known this, and the evidence is only growing stronger.
2. Movement is not optional, it’s foundational
Physical activity supports not just motor development, but also cognition, attention, and emotional regulation.
And importantly, movement is one of the most consistently displaced behaviors when sedentary screen time increases. And most screentime options are sedentary.
3. Context matters more than minutes
Not all screen use is equal: co-viewing, content quality, and purpose matter. But even “high-quality” screen use cannot replace real-world play.
This mirrors the AAP’s shift toward prioritizing content quality, co-use, and real-world context over simple time limits.
4. Sleep, part of the picture, not the whole story
The report identifies associations between screen use and sleep disruption, particularly with evening use and light exposure. But these effects are less consistent and more context-dependent than impacts on interaction and displacement of play.
Which reinforces a bigger point:
Sleep is part of the picture, but movement and interaction are the primary drivers of healthy development in early childhood.
One notable gap in both the EYSTAG report and current AAP guidance:
There is little to no direct evaluation of screens that require physical movement.
In the research literature, these are often called “active video games” or “exergaming.” Almost all studies and recommendations included in both reports are based on:
Not full-body, movement-based interactive experiences. There are many studies that suggest the benefits of exergaming or active video game experiences - but very few in children.
This matters, because when we group all “screen time” together, we risk missing an important distinction:
Not all screen experiences displace movement, and there are new options that actually promote it.
This is an area where the evidence base is still catching up to the technology!
There is one meaningful difference.
The EYSTAG report leans more toward clear time-based guidance, including recommendations like limiting screen use to around an hour per day for young children.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, on the other hand, has intentionally moved away from universal time limits, recognizing that in today’s world, a single number is often unrealistic and less helpful for families.
Instead, the AAP focuses on:
Different framing from each country, but the same underlying priority.
As pediatricians, we’ve spent years helping families set limits:
But families don’t just need limits.
They need replacement.
If we remove screens without filling that space with something meaningful, we create friction. Not change.
And this is where the conversation needs to evolve.
What if instead of focusing only on less screen time, we focused on optimizing movement for children? (The inspiration for my podcast Active Play, Every Day.)
What if the question shifted:
From: “How do I get my child off screens?”
To: “How do I help my child get to 60 minutes of active play every day?”
Because when movement becomes the goal:
This is the shift from restriction to prescription, and my favorite mantra: “Prescribe Active Play”
At Nex, the focus is not just reducing screen time.
It’s transforming it.
Nex believes technology should be designed around the child and family. Not around engagement metrics.
That means:
And most importantly…
It means recognizing that movement-based screen time may function differently than sedentary screen use, even if the research has not yet fully caught up. In other words, the focus should be on developing technology that works with development, not against it.
A pediatrician’s bottom line
The EYSTAG report reinforces something many of us in child health have long understood:
Screens are not inherently the enemy, but they are powerful. And without intentional design and use, they can easily displace the very experiences children need most.
Both the UK report and the American Academy of Pediatrics guidance converge on a critical point:
Healthy child development depends less on screen limits alone and more on what screens replace.
So the goal isn’t zero screens, it’s better choices for childhood:
More movement.
More connection.
More real-world play.
Start today - Prescribe Active Play.
Dr. Emily
