. This report provides figures on screen use among 0-11 years, middle school and high school students. They come from recent national surveys conducted between 2022 and 2025, and from the Elfe cohort, whose data was collected from 2013 to 2017 (p. 6-10, 18-19). It helps to distinguish the health effects that are agreed upon, such as sleep, sedentary behaviour and vision, from those that remain debated, particularly regarding mental health and the cognitive development of young children (p. 4, 15-21). It also reminds that certain uses can promote learning, creativity and socialisation (p. 4, 9-10, 20). It presents French and European interventions with evaluation elements provided by their sponsors. These elements are mostly declarative, except for the programme to support families and parenting (PSFP) and for Protect, presented as having proven their effectiveness (p. 5, 28-38). Finally, it explains the European and French regulatory framework, as well as the legal and public health avenues debated to better regulate the platforms (p. 11, 24-27).
"
1️⃣ SUMMARY
The dossier addresses the use of screens by children and young people, with the exception of the use of artificial intelligence and connected objects (p. 4). It draws on national or European surveys, cohorts, qualitative studies, polls, collective expertise and literature reviews (p. 4). It includes three parts: digital behaviours (p. 6-12), health risks (p. 13-23) and avenues to promote a balanced use (p. 24-38), followed by a selective bibliography (p. 39). The interventions presented are aimed at children, parents and professionals in contact with families, in different living environments, and include regulatory actions by public authorities (p. 4). The dossier also highlights the voices of children and young people (p. 4, 12, 23).
1️⃣ What is consensual, what remains debated. According to a co-chair of the Children and Screens commission, a clear scientific consensus has emerged on the harmful effects on sleep, sedentary behaviour, and vision, regardless of age (p. 15). For mental health, experts agree on an increase in psychiatric comorbidities: screens, especially social networks, are additional risk factors in cases of pre-existing vulnerability. Screen addiction is not recognised as such (p. 16). The expertise of Anses documents the effects of certain uses of social networks among 11-17 year olds (sleep, body image, anxiety-depressive disorders, cyberbullying), more pronounced in girls (p. 20-21). The introduction does, however, specify that the links of causality with mental health are not clearly established (p. 4). Remaining under debate: the role of screens in neurodevelopmental disorders (p. 16). Remaining insufficiently documented: the effects of waves and endocrine disruptors (p. 16)
2️⃣ Cognitive effects to be put into perspective for 0-6 year olds. The introduction and the contribution on technofear mention a proven risk for toddlers (p. 4, 17). The data from the Elfe cohort nuance this finding: the associations between screen time and cognitive scores are largely explained by family factors. They rarely persist, essentially for language, with modest effect sizes. A television on during meals at 2 years old is associated with a lesser development of language (p. 19). The author considers the danger moderate for a given child, but the risk substantial at the population level. He advocates for a collective prevention "measured and proportionate" (p. 19). (Result)
3️⃣ Marked social disparities in the data. In the Enabee study (2022), 35% of 3-5 year olds from the most educated households exceeded one hour of screen time per day on average, compared to 72.1% in households with a qualification lower than the baccalaureate (p. 8). Elfe, the Children and Screens commission and l'Unaf make the same observation (p. 16, 18, 30). Notably, the head of the PSFP observes greater awareness in certain educational contexts, but "overall" no marked social distinction (p. 28). (Observation)
NB: Update » : mobile phones in secondary school (now inaccurate)
The document states (p. 4-5) that, since summer 2026, a legislative project aimed at banning social media for under 15s is under discussion, and that the ban on mobile phones in secondary schools was set to come into force at the start of the school year.
Since then, the Constitutional Council (decision no. 2026-911 DC of 14 August 2026) has censored Article 1, which prohibited access to social media for under 15s. It deemed it disproportionate in light of freedom of expression and communication. Law no. 2026-813 of 24 August 2026 (Official Journal of 25 August) was enacted without this measure. It extends, however, to secondary schools the ban on mobile phones during school hours, starting from the 2026-2027 school year. Sources: press release from the Constitutional Council; Public Life
3️⃣ TO ACT
1️⃣ Propose Faminum to families. Free Internet Without Fear platform to create a family digital charter in six steps; the document presents it as a resource that professionals can offer or relay (p. 30). Existing tool cited by the document. faminum.com
2️⃣ Use the accrometer as a dialogue support with teenagers. Colour scale from blue (balanced use) to red (problematic use), co-constructed with 30 young people, in paper and digital versions; its author specifies that it is not a miracle solution (p. 37). Existing tool cited by the document. internetsanscrainte.fr/accrometre
3️⃣ Refer to 3018 in case of digital violence. National listening and reporting platform, confidential and free, 7 days a week from 9 am to 11 pm, for those under 25, their relatives, witnesses, and perpetrators; it serves as a support point for families and professionals (p. 22). Existing system cited by the document.
4️⃣ 3 PRACTICAL QUESTIONS
1️⃣ Is screen time sufficient to assess a risk? Not on its own. It remains a valuable indicator in monitoring (p. 13), but its relevance is "eroding" (p. 4). Several contributions invite looking at […] (unchanged continuation) .
2️⃣ Do screens cause autism? The co-chair of the commission indicates that it has been "unjustly accused" of blaming screens in the genesis of autism. According to some experts heard, consumption at a very young age can delay the acquisition of cognitive functions, without being irreparable according to the speech therapists consulted (p. 16).
3️⃣ What to propose to adolescents who show early signs of misuse? The Protect programme, adapted by Csapa Kairn 71: four sessions in small groups over four weeks, for volunteers aged 12 to 18 identified by a validated questionnaire. In Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, 77 trained professionals and around 600 young people supported; the French adaptation has been submitted to the ReperPrev register (p. 38).
5️⃣ TO GO FURTHER
Blog Health Practices: Why the ban on social media for under 15s remains a headache in France and Europe (23 September 2026). Provides an update on the censorship of the French law and the European proposal, in addition to pp. 4-5 and 26-27. Link noted on the 'digital' label page of the blog on 9 October 2026.
External resource: Inserm, educational kit "Fake news in health" (10 September 2026): ). The file mentions two workshops conducted during the Press and Media Week 2026, in partnership with Inserm, the General Directorate of Health and Anses: one on health misinformation, the other on mental health (p. 32). Press Release Inserm (verified); page for downloading the kit (link relayed by the press release, not opened).
6️⃣ #️⃣ HASHTAGS
#healthpractices #Prevention #Screens #DigitalParenting #MediaEducation #YouthHealth #DigitalLiteracy #SocialMedia
7️⃣ VIEW ON HEALTH PRACTICES
Analysis Health Practices, not attributable to the authors of the file.
⚠️ Equity (ethics, human rights, combating discrimination) : : well-documented social inequalities (p. 4, 6-8, 16, 18-19, 30) ; LGBTQIA+ adolescents or those with developmental disorders (ADHD, ASD, ID) more cyberbullied (p. 21). Some interventions target remote audiences: Bordeaux (priority neighbourhoods, translated tools, p. 35), Afpa workshops (single-parent families, p. 29), Unaf label (diversity of families, p. 31), Protect in local missions and second chance schools (p. 38). But none measure their effect on the reduction of disparities.
✅ Networking (intersectorality, partnership) : Workshops Health-City of Bordeaux involving PMI, National Education, municipal services and associations (p. 35) ; partnership ARS, Csapa, National Education and youth structures for Protect (p. 38) ; P@rents label, let's talk digital (p. 31).
Assessment : strengths, the voice of young people and the diversity of actors involved ; main lack, interventions whose effects are most often measured declaratively. Two exceptions are noted by the file: the PSFP and Protect (p. 5, 28, 38). The reduction of inequalities is rarely evaluated.
To go further, order a research or a documentary watch
This article : An editorial production based on
experience enhanced by artificial intelligence - The English version of the site is an automatic translation: the French version prevails - Click on the image 