PLoS ONE plos plosone PLOS ONE 1932-6203 Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA 10.1371/journal.pone.0272630 PONE-D-22-03218 Research Article People and placesPopulation groupingsAge groupsChildren People and placesPopulation groupingsFamiliesChildren Biology and life sciencesPsychologyBehaviorRecreationGamesVideo games Social sciencesPsychologyBehaviorRecreationGamesVideo games Biology and life sciencesPsychologyBehaviorRecreationGames Social sciencesPsychologyBehaviorRecreationGames Research and analysis methodsDatabase and informatics methodsDatabase searching Medicine and health sciencesPublic and occupational healthHealth promotion Computer and information sciencesData managementData visualizationInfographicsCharts Biology and life sciencesPsychologyAddiction Social sciencesPsychologyAddiction Computer and information sciencesComputer networksInternet Children’s experiences of play in digital spaces: A scoping review Children’s experiences of play in digital spaces: A scoping review https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3726-6681 Loudoun Fiona M. Conceptualization Formal analysis Methodology Writing – original draft 1 * Boyle Bryan Conceptualization Supervision Writing – review & editing 1 Larsson-Lund Maria Conceptualization Supervision Writing – review & editing 2 Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland Division of Health, Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Health, Education, and Technology, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå, Sweden Potenza Marc N. Editor Yale University, UNITED STATES

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist

 * E-mail: floudoun@ucc.ie 9 8 2022 2022 17 8 e0272630 1 2 2022 23 7 2022 2022 Loudoun et al This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child has substantiated play for play’s sake, thus focusing on the doing or being of play rather than any potentially desired outcomes. Examining this type of play from the perspective of the child acknowledges children as meaning-makers. A scoping review was conducted to expose and map the extent of the evidence available in the emerging and diverse field of children’s experiences of play in digital spaces. Specifically, the literature was examined with regards to relevance to children’s everyday lives, the personal and ecological relevance, and the methods used. A systematic search of the literature over the past fifteen years found thirty-one articles appropriate for inclusion. The analysis of the literature revealed that the articles formed four categories of how play in digital spaces was approached: ‘Videogames, behaviours, and societal norms’, ‘Videogames for its own sake’, ‘Videogames for learning’, and ‘Active Videogames for health promotion’. This scoping review has identified a lack of articles focusing on children’s experiences of play in a digital space, and these perspectives are essential for parents, professionals, game designers, and policymakers alike to contribute to an enhanced understanding of the role of play in digital spaces.

 The authors received no specific funding for this work. Data Availability All relevant data are contained within the paper. Introduction

Play and the rights of children and young people has been resolutely established through the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child [1]. Specifically, Article 31 outlines that every child has the right to participate in play or leisure activities that are appropriate for the age of the child with Article 12 highlighting the right of the child’s voice to be heard. Globally, the UNCRC has firmly re-positioned children in society, acknowledging them not only as the holder of rights but also able to share and make meaning from their unique perspective of the world [2–4]. Play is widely recognised to benefit children’s emotional, social, physical, and cognitive development [5,6] and is valued from educational, therapeutic, and developmental perspectives. However, the doing or being of play; ultimately play for play’s sake focuses on the “process rather than the product”[7]. Participation in play is accepted as a child’s primary activity and is characterised as being initiated, organised, and controlled by the child themselves [8,9]. Based on Bronfenbrenner’s ecology of human development, the validity of this free play needs to be examined within the context of which it is happening and where children are consistently expected to be [10–12]. This, therefore, demonstrates the value of ecological relevance to children’s daily life. Research exploring the doing of play rather than as a mean for another purpose is emphasised to prioritise children’s perspectives of their own self-chosen and directed play. Although, there has been an increase in interest in research examining the nature of autotelic play in diverse backgrounds and environments such as playgrounds [13], urban spaces [14] and in rural settings such as forests [15], there remains a context that has been largely ignored to date.

The rapid acceleration in the development and accessibility of technology and digital devices throughout the 21st century has shifted the opportunities, nature, and the spaces in which children can play. Children are engaging in play from simple puzzle games to more complex strategy games using a plethora of devices such as smart phones, tablets, laptops, and game consoles. These devices are providing new contexts for children to engage in play in digital spaces. Children can now enter a shared virtual space in which they can engage in social and collaborative play with friends whilst being remotely located. Despite the increase in opportunities available, a polarised and often negative discourse continues to exist regarding the use of digital devices in children’s play. This remains largely from the perspective of adults and dominated by the negative consequences of increased screen time and sedentary behaviours [16]. Thus, an enhanced understanding of children’s perspectives of their play in digital spaces is essential to distinguish this type of play. A recent report ‘Playful by Design: A Vision of Free Play in a Digital World’ from The Digital Future Commission identified 12 qualities of free play within a digital space valued by children: intrinsically motivated, voluntary; open-ended; imaginative; stimulating; emotionally resonant; social; diverse; risk-taking; safety; sense of achievement; and immersive [17]. This report emphasises the importance of recognising free play in digital spaces from the child’s perspective and a shift to presenting the emerging knowledge to stakeholders.

By conceptualising children as meaning makers, the inclusion of their unique perspective of play throughout the literature is recognised. It has been identified that children do not distinguish between types of play as adults do [9,18,19], therefore further research with children is required to fully understand their perspective. This would shift the shared standards, beliefs, and attitudes indicated by societal norms. Play within digital spaces is examined from a range of different academic fields and thus different perspectives, however, little is known regarding how this research is approached when it comes to children’s everyday lives, personal and ecological relevance, and the methods used. This is important as the extent to which children’s perspectives of play is determined by how the research is designed and approached. Therefore, when studying children’s experiences of play, it is important that the research is centred around the context of children engaging in play that they would typically engage in with devices and spaces that are available and accessible to them. This indicates the validity of play that is embedded within the temporal and spatial dimensions of daily life or the lived experience of the child [10]. This era of digitalisation is proffering children a range of options and choices regarding their play, therefore understanding the personal relevance of play in digital spaces as perceived by the individual indicates a clear purpose and meaning to those involved. Research with children should also denote an ecological relevance. An ecological relevance recognises children engaging in play as they typically would within their everyday digital spaces opposed to simulated research contexts [11]. The methods used throughout research should transition from conceptualising children from being passive participants to active consumers of digital devices and online worlds [3]. A plethora of creative and engaging data collection tools ensures children are listened to thus supporting successful participation and acknowledging them as meaning-makers [4,20]. This acknowledges children as agentic agents who are able to make sense from their participation in play [4]. Similarly, the use of direct quotes from the child indicates that the child has been listened to and their opinion valued [20–22].

By studying how play in digital spaces is approached, gaps are identified to highlight areas for future development of research and knowledge in the area. This scoping review aims to describe and review the qualitative research articles which explores children’s experiences of play in digital spaces from infancy through to adolescence. More specifically, how children’s play in digital spaces is approached in research concerning, (a) the general relevance to children’s daily life, (b) the personal and ecological relevance, and (c) the methods used.

 Methods

A scoping review was completed to expose and map the extent of the evidence available in the emerging and diverse field of children’s experiences of play in digital spaces [23]. The review drew on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and Arksey & O’Malley’s (2005) methodological framework to provide a structured and systematic approach to the review [24]. Further recommendations were provided by the Joanna Briggs Institute [25]. The scoping review was constructed of 5 stages [26] which will be further described.

Stage 1: Identifying the research question(s)

The scoping review will examine what evidence is available regarding children’s perspectives of play in digital spaces by exploring how the daily relevance, personal and ecological relevance, and methods are approached within the research articles.

 Stage 2: Identifying relevant studies

To gather the most relevant literature, the first author consulted expert Librarians from University College Cork, Ireland and Luleå University of Technology, Sweden to review the search strategy. The primary search terms of play, playing, game or gaming were selected as these are what are typically used within the existing literature. These were combined using the proximity operator NEAR to locate hits that united play or gaming with digital or technology terms to ensure responses within a certain distance of each other regardless of the order. This initial search blocks were then combined using the Boolean AND operator to a second search block focusing on the concept of children’s perspectives. The search blocks required thorough testing to ensure appropriate hits were returned due to the variety of terms used in literature from a broad range of academic fields. To ensure a thorough approach, a systematic search of four databases (Web of Science, ERIC, PsycINFO and Scopus) was completed to gather literature from a range of research fields, including Social Sciences, Education, Psychology as well as Computer Sciences. The electronic searches of databases were completed in October 2021 –see Table 1 for the final list of search terms. Research studies were restricted by publication in English (for pragmatic reasons) and limited to results within the last 15 years.

10.1371/journal.pone.0272630.t001 Search blocks.
Play OR playing OR games OR gaming NEAR/2 Digital OR technology OR virtual OR internet OR computers OR video OR online OR mobile OR applications OR “videogames” AND Child OR adolescent OR “young people” OR “young person” or teenager OR children NEAR/2 perspectives OR views OR opinions OR beliefs OR experiences OR perceptions OR understandings OR qualitative
Stage 3: Search selection

All references and abstracts were uploaded to Rayyan (www.rayyan.ai) from the four databases for the screening and selection process. This allowed for duplicate articles to be removed, resulting in a yield of 553 articles. Blind screening of first the titles followed by the abstracts was completed based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria by the authors (FL, BB). Inclusion criteria included qualitative papers between 2007–2021 and written in English for pragmatic purposes. Both authors met to discuss and agree on any divergent opinions in relation to the selection of the articles. A total of 63 articles were full text screened by all authors (FL, MLL, BB). Any studies not meeting the criteria were excluded and the remaining full-text studies were retained for data extraction. S1 Fig outlines the screening process of identifying and selecting of the study is indicated based on the PRISMA-ScR.

Following the initial screening and full-text review, a total of 32 articles were excluded based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, specifically: research using quantitative data collection methods and/or analysis (n = 8), use of digital tools during real world play (n = 8), not peer-reviewed articles or original data collection (n = 6), child’s perspective not clear (n = 3), focused on the design or evaluation of a specific game (n = 2), and not focused on play in digital spaces (n = 2). The articles excluded were done so following discussion by at least two of the authors. This resulted in a total of 31 articles retained for data extraction which met the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

 Stage 4: Charting the data

Two data extraction charts were created and reviewed iteratively throughout the extraction process to ensure all relevant information was presented. The first extraction chart focused on the content and the demographics of the research articles; the aim, the number and age of participants, and the data collection and analysis methods. The second data extraction chart was inspired on theories in relation to play and ecology [10,11,26,27] to facilitate a clear perspective on free play within an authentic and everyday context. The literature was systemically charted to scope the articles in relation to relevance to daily life, personal and ecological relevance, and the methods used. The relevance to a child’s daily life signifies whether the games or play that was being researched is generally available in society to children and their families (on the open market allowing it to be downloaded and played on their own devices). Personal and ecological relevance refers to whether the games or play researched has purpose and meaning for the particular child’s daily life and if they constitute a natural context in which children would engage in play experience. The methods applied for data collection and analysis ensures children’s active engagement in the research, by the choice of data collection methods and how the results were presented such as their voice being clearly articulated.

 Stage 5: Collating, summarising, and reporting the results

The two data extraction charts were used by the first author to collate, summarise, and report on the results found. Firstly, the initial data extraction chart was used to collate the aim, the number and age of participants, and the data collection and analysis methods of the included articles. Following this, the second data extraction chart allowed for data to be drawn from the literature that responded to the research question. The data was extracted by thoroughly examining and analysing the content of the included articles. Categories then evolved iteratively by comparing and analysing the content of the articles in parallel to the data extraction charts to find commonalities and similarities between them [24]. Every step taken was discussed and reviewed between the authors (FL, MLL). Finally, all authors scrutinised, discussed, and validated the review to ensure that the results were grounded in the articles.

The analysis of content revealed that the research approached play in digital spaces in a variety of ways. The terminology of videogaming was most commonly used to describe the action of children’s engagement with the activity. Few articles used the terminology of play, with none conceptualising play for play’s sake as a right [1]. Thus, within the included articles play in digital spaces is most commonly referred to video games and will be consequently used throughout this scoping review.

 Results Evidence characteristics

Fifteen of the 31 articles were published in the last 5 years (2017–2021) and the majority of the studies originated from The United States of America (n = 11, 35%) and Europe (n = 11, 35%) (Table 2). The age of the children ranged from 3 to 18 years of age with studies (n = 18) tending to include older children (age 10 and above). Thirteen studies included children under the age of 9 years of age and of them, only three studies included children under the age of 6 years. Seven studies included an age range of children spanning 5 years or more. No studies included children with a recognised or diagnosed disability.

10.1371/journal.pone.0272630.t002 Characteristics of included studies.
Reference Aim Participants Country Data Collection Data Analysis
Albarello, F., Novoa, A., Sánchez, M. C., Velasco, A., Hueyo, M. V. N., Narbais, F. [18] To explore the social dimension of Fortnite and how it impacts children and their parents’ perceptions of its use 82 children (9–18 years old) from 32 households  Chile & Argentina In-depth Interviews Thematic analysis
Balmford, W. & Davies, H. [28] How Minecraft on mobile devices is played and perceived within homes 8 children (6–14 years old) from 5 households  Australia Ethnography: informal interviews, play sessions, and participant observation content
Barreto, D., Vasconcelos, L. & Orey, M. [29] To explore student motivation and engagement levels in playing math video games 2 children (8 & 9 years old) USA Screen recordings (primary data source) & closed and open -ended interview Interaction analysis and Grounded Theory methods
Bassiouni, D.H. & Hackley, C. [30] To investigate childrens experience as consumers of video games and associated digital communication technology 22 children (6–12 years old) UK Focus groups and in-depth interviews Discourse analysis
Brownell, C.J. [31] To examine how the boundaries of the digital were blurred in response to a standardised writing prompt 1 child (10 years old) USA Observation, field notes, writing samples, photographs, and lesson plans. Included formal interviews. Iterative process
Carter, M., Moore, K., Mavoa, J., Gaspard, L. & Horst, H.[32] To examine how children encounter and attempt to negotiate game addiction discourse 24 children (9–14 years old) Australia Semi-structured interviews Constructivist grounded theory techniques
Carter, M., Moore, K., Mavoa, J., Horst, H., & Gaspard, L. [33] To explore what Fortnite offers young people as they move from children’s gaming into genres that appeal to tweens and teens 24 children (9–14 years old) Australia Semi-structured interviews Not described
Daneels, R., Vandebosch, H. & Walrave, M [34] To examine the ability of digital games to elicit meaningful or eudemonic experiences among adolescents 33 children (12–18 years old) Belgium Focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Horizontal analysis, Inductively and deductively
De Vet, E., Simons, M. & Wesselman, M. [35] To explore children and parents opinions about active and non-active video games 46 children (8–12 years old)19 parents Netherlands Semi-structured focus groups. Content analysis
Dixon, R., Maddison, R., Mhurchu, C. N., Jull, A., Meagher-Lundberg, P. & Widdowson, D. [36] To explore children’s and parents’ perceptions of active video gaming 37 children (10–14 years old)27 parents New Zealand Focus groups. Not described
Dodge, T., Barab, S., Stuckley, B., Warren, S., Heiselt, C. & Stein, R. [37] To examine children’s experiences in their participation in Quest Atlantis 4 children (9–12 years old) USA & Singapore Participant observation and semi-structured interviews. Constant-comparative analysis
Fonseca, R.M.G.S., Santos, D.L.A., Gessner, R., Fornari, L.F., Oliveira, R.N.G. & Schoenmaker, M.C. [38] To identify and analyse the perception of high school students about sex, sexuality, and violence in intimacy relations, in light of the gender category 27 adolescents (age not specified) Brazil Discursive commentaries from playing Thematic content analysis
Hamlen, K. & Gage, H. [39] To understand how students participate in and experience various methods of game play that don’t follow traditional formats 3 children (14, 15 & 17 years old) USA Phenomenological approach: exploratory study using in-depth semi-structured interviews  Thematic analysis
Hannaford, J. [40] To explore children’s imaginative interaction with Internet games 8 children (8 & 9 years old) A European City Semi-structured interviews Grounded theory approach
Huh, Y.J. [41] To explore young children’s digital game play outside the home 4 children (3 years old) USA Observation and informal interviews, including field notes, photography, and videotaping Bakhtinian interpretative analysis
Inal, Y. & Cagiltay, K. [42] To explore children’s flow experiences in an interactive social game environment 33 children (7–9 years old) Turkey Interviews and observation Not described
Iqbal, A., Kankaanranta, M., & Neittaanmäki, P. [43] To explore the experience and motivations of young people participating in virtual worlds 15 students between (13–15 years)  Finland Mixed methods: Questionnaires, Interviews, and observation Not described
Kahila, J., Tedre, M., Kahila, S., Vartiainen, H., Valtonen, T. & Mäkitalo, K. [44] To explore children’s metagame activities 142 children (12–15 years old) Finland Essay writing Qualitative content analysis
Kutner, L.A., Olson, C.K., Warner, D.E. & Hertzog, S.M. [45] To explore and identify themes in parents’ and children’s perspectives on video game play 21 children (12–14 years old)21 parents or guardians USA Focus groups using printed colour images to stimulate discussion Thematic analysis
Leonhardt, M., & Overå, S. [46] To quantify gaming and to examine how gender differences are perceived 25 (13–16 years old) Norway Mixed methods: survey and semi-structured group interviews Chi-square tests and thematic analysis
Maine, F. [47] To explore what children’s gaming orientations are as they play a digital narrative game. 8 children (11 year olds) UK Observation and post-play discussion Not described
Mertala, P. & Meriläinen, M. [48] To explore what aspects of digital games appear meaningful for young children 26 children (5–7 years old) Finland Drawing and informal interview Descriptive analysis and interpretative analysis
Monem, R. [49] To explore the metacognition and self-scaffolding processes involved in navigating digital immersive environments 1 child (16 years old) USA Participants observation, face to face interviews, and document analysis of a cultural artifact Content analysis
Nease, B., & Samura, M. [50] To explore adolescent gamers perceptions about cheating 12 children (14–17 years old) USA Semi-structured interviews Inductive analysis
Olsen, C., Kutner, L., & Warner, D.E. [51] To examine how children perceive the uses and influence of violent interactive games. 42 boys (12–14 years old) USA Focus groups Not specifically described
Sarachan, J. [52] To explore how children’s virtual worlds appeal to different players with varying levels of cognitive and social development 16 children (6–11 years old) USA Observation and semi-structured interviews Qualitative text analysis software
Soek, H.J., Lee, J.M., Park, C., & Park, J.Y. [53] To explore adolescents’ motivations for internet games. 10 boys (12–17 years old) South Korea Photovoice and group discussion Continuous comparison analysis
Van Rooij, A., Daneels, R., Liu, S., Anrijs, S. & Van Looy, J. [54] To review three popular theoretical perspectives that cover motives for video gaming 20 x family units covering data from 37 children and their parents (4–12 years)  Belgium Interviews Open, axial, and selective coding
Verenikina, I. & Kervin, L., Rivera, M.C., & Lidbetter, A. [55] To explore how young children respond to the applications for mobile digital technologies offer varying opportunities for play 10 children (3–5 years old) Australia Observation Not described
Willett, R. [56] To examine online gaming practices of children in home settings 11 children aged 7–11 years USA Semi-structured interviews, paper-based activities, and observation Thematic analysis
Willett, R. [57] To examine families’ everyday practices connected with online games played by children 8 households. 5 x girls & 6 x boys (aged 7–11 years) who played online games  USA Semi-structured interviews, paper-based activities, and observation Thematic analysis

The analysis of the content of the articles revealed that the articles formed four categories (Table 3) of how they approached play in digital spaces: ‘Videogames, behaviours, and societal norms’, ‘Videogames for its own sake’, ‘Videogames for learning’, and ‘Active Videogames for health promotion’ that will be presented below. The results of the analysis within each category will be described by the general relevance to a child’s daily life, the personal and ecological relevance, and the methods used.

10.1371/journal.pone.0272630.t003 Overview of data extraction.
Daily Life Personal & Ecological relevance combination of methods Methods Use of Quotes
Interview/ focus group Observation Drawing/writing/photographs Other
(1)Video games, behaviours, and societal norms (n = 14)
Social behaviour (n = 4) 4 3/4 2/4 4 2 1 4
Cheating (n = 3) 3 2/3 0/3 2 1 3
Violence (n = 3) 2 2/3 1/3 2 1 (discursive commentaries) 3
Addiction (n = 2) 2 1/2 1/2 1 1 2
Flow (n = 1) 1 0/1 1/1 1 1 1
Gender (n = 1) 1 0/1 0/1 1 1
(2)Video gaming for its own sake (n = 10) 10 5/10 6/10 9 6 3 8
(3)Video gaming for learning (n = 5) 5 2/5 4/5 4 3 1 1 (screen recordings) 5
(4)Video games for health promotion (n = 2) 2 1/2 0/2 2 2
TOTAL 30/31 16/31 15/31 26/31 12/31 7/31
Video games, behaviours, and societal norms

This category includes a total of fourteen studies with five sub-categories focusing on various behaviours and societal norms which include articles on children’s perspectives of video games influencing: social behaviours, cheating, violence, addiction, flow, and gender.

Social behaviours in video games

This category includes four articles [18,49,54,56] that explore children’s experience and perspectives of the social, metacognition and self-scaffolding behaviours in video games. All studies demonstrated general relevance to a child’s daily life by using video games that are popular and readily on the market, such as Fortnite, Clash of Clans, and Minecraft. The personal and ecological relevance was demonstrated for three studies. Participants were recruited who engaged regularly in video game play and the articles examined the participant’s everyday play experiences indicating purpose and meaning for the child. The participants chose and engaged in their everyday play experiences demonstrating ecological relevance [18,49,56]. In Van Rooij et al’s [54] study families were provided a console system, motion sensors and example games for a two-week period and were interviewed before and after [54]. By this, the purpose and meaning of videogaming was derived from the research question, focusing on the persistence of engagement in video game play which limited the personal and ecological relevance. All studies utilised interviews in data collection with the inclusion of observation [49] and observation and paper-based activities [56]. All articles in this category demonstrated the use of quotes throughout the articles to clearly position the child’s voice throughout. Although one study presented the parents perspective before the child, extensive direct quotes from both children and parents were used throughout the results [18].

 Cheating and metagaming in video games

Three studies explored children’s perspectives of cheating or using metagaming in video games [39,44,50]. Metagaming indicates the pregame strategising which ultimately aims to advance game play by developing skills and techniques [58]. The general relevance to children’s daily life was clear in all studies with metagaming and cheating widely recognised as a dimension of videogame play. However, the personal and ecological relevance was not consistently demonstrated across all three. In two of the studies participants were selected due to their experience of playing video games [39,50]. It was not clear, however, whether all participants in Kahila et al., [44] study were regular players of video games thus whether it was of personal relevance. All three, however, did demonstrate ecological relevance by examining children’s experiences of their metagaming and cheating in their real everyday video game play. All articles demonstrated data collection methods that actively engaged children in the research; Semi-structured interviews were utilised for two studies [39,50] and essay writing for the other [44]. The child’s perspective was articulated throughout the results and their voice were reflected through the use of direct quotes.

 Violence in video games

Three articles fall into the category of how children experience and perceive violence when playing video games [38,45,51]. Two studies [45,51] demonstrate general relevance to a child’s daily life by focusing on video games that are available readily on the market, however, it was not clear from the article or from a search online whether the game in one study [38] was readily available and therefore relevant to a child’s daily life. The personal and ecological relevance was valid for two studies [45,51] where participants were regular players of two or more of the bestselling violent games or had played video or computer games for at least 2 hours a week. In the remaining article [38] the game was only made available to the participants once they signed up for the research and no information was given if the game demonstrated personal relevance to the participating children’s everyday life. However, this article did examine the participants experiences as they engaged with the game and it was not clear whether the play was directed from the researcher or the participants. Two studies used focus groups to generate data [45,51] with the final study extracting the discursive commentaries from the participants [38]. Despite Kutner et al., [45] positioning parental perspectives before the children in the results, the child’s perspective was evident and direct quotes were used to help counterbalance this.

 Addiction in video games

Two articles [32,53] examined children’s perspectives of negotiating and understanding addiction when playing video games. Both studies demonstrated general relevance to children’s daily lives as it concerned gaming on the internet [53] and the game, Fortnite, which is readily available on the market [32]. The personal and ecological relevance differed with one study recruiting regular players [53] and the other recruiting participants who were not all video game players [32]. The context for Seok et al [53] study was a treatment centre for adolescents receiving treatment for internet game addiction [53]. Both articles used methods to enable the children to talk freely about their own play experiences. Specifically, the use of Photovoice methodology provided participants the opportunities to decide the questions and topics for discussion within the category of addiction [53]. The use of semi-structured interviews [32] elicited the participants experiences of negotiating addiction discourses. The results from both studies clearly articulate the child’s perspectives in the article and through the use of quotes.

 Flow in an interactive videogame

One article examined children’s flow experiences [42] of an interactive social videogame. This article demonstrated general relevance to daily life focusing on games that are readily available. However, the personal and ecological relevance was limited as not all participants selected were allowed or able to play computer games at home. Despite being able to choose and play games according to their own personal preference, the context in which it was examined was their computer lab at school. Qualitative and quantitative methods were used for data collection with a greater focus on the qualitative components. Despite the use of observation and interview, the children’s perspective and voice were not clear throughout the results.

 Gender differences in videogaming

One article [46] examined how students perceive and understand gender differences in videogaming which indicated general relevance for a child’s daily life. The personal and ecological relevance varied as participants ranged from those with little gaming experience to those who referred to gaming as a passionate hobby. The use of focus groups facilitated the children to share their everyday experiences of videogaming and how they understand gender differences. The use of quotes positioned the child’s voice and perspective throughout the results.

 Videogaming for its own sake

A total of ten articles fall within the autotelic play category [28,30,33,34,41,43,48,52,56,57]. All articles within this category demonstrate a general relevance to a child’s daily life with games, devices, and apps used in the research readily available, such as Minecraft, Fortnite, and Club Penguin. The personal and ecological relevance were missing or unclear in five studies. Of those, not all the participants were regular video game or virtual world players in two studies [33,52]. A further two studies did not clearly articulate whether playing video games were relevant to the participants involved [28,48]. In the remaining article, despite the children being regular players at home, they were provided with individual iPads with purposively selected applications for play by the research team when they attended a Digital Playgroup [55]. This indicates a simulated context which resulted in a diminished personal and ecological relevance. The other remaining five studies demonstrated personal and ecological relevance as all children engaged in these activities in digital spaces at home.

A variety of data collection methods were used including, interviews, focus groups, drawing, and observation. Six articles used a combination of methods, resulting in four articles choosing one data collection method. Out of the ten articles, the methods used for three articles suggest that the child participants were not actively engaged in the research process with the researcher conducting research of children and dominating the voice of the child [28,52,55]. For example, one article relied solely on the observation of children [55] resulting in the adult’s perspective being elevated above the children. The remaining seven articles clearly positioned the child’s voice by using direct quotes throughout the article.

 Video games for learning

Five articles explored children’s experiences of the use of video games as a means to enhance children’s learning and literacy [29,31,37,40,47]. The video games used; Minecraft, Club Penguin, and Quest Atlantis all have general relevance to children’s daily life. Two articles demonstrated personal relevance with participants recruited as they were regular players of the game [31,40]. The further three articles did not clearly state whether the participants were regular players of the game [29,37,47]. Ecological relevance was established for three articles as children engaged in or discussed their typical play experiences [29,37,40], however, the remaining two articles were conducted in simulated contexts lacking ecological relevance [31,47]. Despite the participants in Maine’s [47] study being able to choose who they played with, this involved playing a single-player game on a single device in pairs indicating a simulated context for the purpose of the research. Brownell [31] examined the participants’ writing about experiences of video game play opposed to the playing. Observation and interviews were used in all studies [29,37,40,47], with the additional of written text in Brownell, [31] and drawings in Hannaford [40] study. The child’s perspective and voice was clear throughout the results in four articles [39,44,56,57].

 Active video games for health promotion

This category includes two articles [35,36] that explore children’s perceptions of active video games as a means for health promotion by addressing inactivity and obesity. The video games focused on both articles have general relevance to children’s daily life but the personal and ecological relevance for the included children differed. The active video games were ecologically relevant for the children in [35] study as they were regular players, which indicated meaning and purpose for the children participating in the research. Although eligibility for inclusion required the participants in Dixon et al’s [36] study to be either current or previous players of electronic console games, it was not specified whether they had previously played active video games. Therefore, the children were given a demonstration of active video games and the opportunity to practice playing the games up to a half hour before data collection. Both articles utilised focus groups for children to share their experiences of how they choose to engage in active video gaming, independent if they had played active video games before or if they just faced it before the data collection. The children’s perspective was clearly described in the result and through the use of quotes in both articles.

 Discussion

In this scoping review we set out to expose and map the extent of the evidence available in the emerging and diverse field of children’s experiences of their play in digital spaces. Specifically, we sought to examine the evidence of representations of digital play that has personal and ecological relevance through being embedded in the daily lives of children and families. Of the total thirty-one research articles identified we found that a total of twenty-one focused on play in digital spaces as a means for studying secondary constructs such as fostering specific behaviours, societal norms, learning, or for health promotion. Those articles addressing play for learning, for example, examined how video games engage children in their literacy practices in school [31]. Within the wider literature, it is acknowledged that video games incorporate a range of principles required for learning and thus, enhance learning [59–61].

Despite abounding concerns linking the use of videogames to inactivity and negative health consequences for children [6,16], the review identified a number of studies that sought to leverage the play dimension of active videogames to encourage a reduction in sedentary behaviours and obesity [35,36]. Similarly, other studies focussed on a genre linking play, videogames and health, namely, exergames and increasingly Virtual Reality games, can be seen to demonstrate how the active, play potential of gaming technology can reap health dividends for children, mirroring research in outdoor play [62,63]. As is the case with research focused on play in other spaces such as playgrounds [64], the findings from this review suggest that play as a dimension of videogaming can serve as a valuable function in supporting children’s skills and development more generally [18,31,46].

The remaining ten articles centred on children’s play experiences that could be considered ‘free’ or devoid of secondary purposes; play for the sake of play. Closer examination however, revealed that although these ten articles focusing on free play experiences had a relevance to children’s daily lives, it was not clear whether five of the studies recruited participants who were regular video game players or for whom play in digital spaces might be an existing activity in their daily repertoire. This suggests that although the studies themselves examined play experiences that were free from the assumption of secondary effects or benefits, they did not present the same meaning or personal relevance to the children. The play experiences reported across these ten studies were further examined in terms of whether they were conducted in either a simulated or natural context. Of the ten articles in this study that focussed on ‘free’ play, seven were situated in environments that had ecological relevance, reflecting typical lives of young children by conducting research in contexts where they would typically engage in this type of play. Simulated research contexts included a specific Digital Playgroup [55], a college conference room [52], and a school computer lab [43] indicated a lack of ecological relevance.

The importance of examining play as embedded in space and time as well as ecologically situated in the lived experience of children recognises the complex transactional nature of the activity [10,11,65]. In research focussed on outdoor play or play in the home, the need to examine the experience of play where it occurs is strongly emphasised [66]. The findings from this review also suggest that any examination of play in digital spaces also requires that research be situated in authentic, ecologically valid contexts that are reflective of the personal, lived experiences of children. Despite this recognition of the benefits of researching digital play in naturally occurring contexts, careful attention must be given to understanding how best to capture play experiences from the perspective of the central protagonist, namely, the child. The studies that comprised this review tended to limit children’s engagement in the research to participation modes more typically employed in research with adults such as focus groups [67,68] and interviews [69].

Recent work has highlighted an increasing imperative to examine the experiences of children from their own perspectives [70], in particular, those experiences that quintessentially belong to children such as play [71]. Despite a broad acknowledgments that research with children requires a shift from traditional methods of discursive data gathering to creative, age appropriate and child-directed techniques [4] only four of the studies in this review employed research approaches that might be considered ‘child-centred’ [28,41,48,57]. These results indicate that a more complete exploration of children’s perspectives of play in digital spaces must focus on participatory, child-centred study designs that captures their unique experiences of free play that is embedded within their everyday lives. For example, the mosaic approach enables researchers to use a plethora of creative visual tools to ensure children are listened to thus supporting successful participation and acknowledging them as meaning-makers [4,20]. Techniques such as Photovoice or the use of drawings can also provide children with a visual representation and enables researchers to elicit and generate children’s narrative of participation in play thus providing participants with autonomy [72,73]. Furthermore, the scoping review highlights that to date, children from more diverse backgrounds or with particular needs, for example, those with disabilities have been largely ignored. Our findings also demonstrate that the majority of the literature focuses on older children [26,44] and that those younger children rarely received the primary focus during recruitment [41]. Considering the developmental nature of play in childhood [74] a greater focus of studies involving younger children and children from diverse populations’ experience will provide greater depth of insights as to the nature of free play in digital spaces. Despite the limited availability of literature focussed on play for play’s sake in digital spaces, a number of characteristics were evident that highlights the ways in which the experience of digital play resembles more traditional forms and some ways in which they diverge.

As noted earlier, play is widely accepted as a child’s primary activity and is characterised as being initiated, organised, and controlled by the child themselves [8]. Within the literature, there are instances outlining that children are initiating and controlling the play themselves, such as the researcher observing the child’s typical, everyday experiences within digital spaces [41,52] or through the consideration of the use of YouTube or Discord which allows children to plan strategies and techniques for gameplay [18]. Across some of the studies in this sample, it was reported that children enjoyed being able to play familiar aspects of games represented, but also being able to challenge themselves throughout the process of the game [33,49,52,54], thus providing a feeling of achievement which served to keep them engaged and interested. The ability to invent or to create new games such as playing hide and seek within the virtual space indicate that children respond to the imaginative dimensions within the virtual space. This indicates that when children are provided with the opportunities, they are able to go beyond the pre-defined rules and purpose of the game [47,48]. This mirrors the literature in nature and outdoor play that suggests that free play enhances their imagination and that they respond to the sense of achievement within digital spaces [75].

Reflecting on some of the emerging play opportunities brought about by recent developments in online gaming, virtual worlds and augmented reality, some studies suggest that children increasingly view digital spaces as social contexts in which they can maintain existing as well as create new friendships [18,33,44]. Although parents and children are reported as having divergent views on the role of play in digital spaces; as more time is spent online since the COVID-19 restrictions [76], online games, in particular, now afford considerable elements of social interaction within their design [77]. For example, ‘Playground’ mode in the popular building game, Minecraft, presents opportunities’ to ‘hang out’ augmenting the extension of children’s offline social environment [33,46]. This reflects some findings from research that explores children’s play in other domains such as outdoor settings or risky play that play can enhance social skills [64,75]. Despite the limited studies available in this review, it is interesting to note that children fully understand the potential such game experiences offer them when playing with other children either when co-located with each other or, increasingly when remotely located [77,78]. For example, many games, such Fortnite and Among Us, that support cross-platform play promote opportunities for children to engage in social play without the limitations of traditional, offline play spaces such as homes, schoolyards and playgrounds. Thus, recognising the considerable social dimensions of games within digital spaces proffer a complex and interactive play experiences for children that is comparable to the experiences offered within offline contexts.

Although representations of play for children that are freely chosen are evident across the studies in this review, these experiences presented are not exclusively described as play. Rather there is an interchangeability of language used to describe what it is that children do when engaging in such activities.

The studies included in this scoping review referred to experiences that may be construed or interpreted as children’s play. It is evident, however, that the continued use of descriptions such as ‘digital games’ [34,48], ‘video gameplay’ [50] and ‘videogames’ [30,51] obscures our understanding of what truly constitutes play as an autotelic, freely chosen children’s activity in the context of digital spaces. Furthermore, it highlights the need for researchers to focus more on the individual perspectives of children and to trust their ability to represent their own experiences using a language that is familiar to them and reflects their own individual interpretation of what they see as ‘play’ in digital spaces.

 Limitations

A systematic and rigorous approach was adopted [24,79] when carrying out this scoping review. However, some limitations exist. The criteria of excluding all but peer-reviewed articles as the primary source of data may have missed worthy perspectives from alternatives such as conference papers. The review included papers in English language only, therefore evidence published in other languages may have been missed. A total of four electronic databases were selected and searched, and despite those covering a range of academic fields, articles from other databases may have unintentionally been excluded. Finally, due to the diversity and scope of the field, the use of search blocks and specific terms, may have resulted in exclusion of further research articles. To counteract this, various test searches were completed with advice from experts in the field and Librarians. Initial articles found to be of interest were examined for keywords in their title and abstract to ensure the use of appropriate terminology. However, it is important to acknowledge that despite these actions relevant articles may have been excluded, therefore, to compensate for this, a hand search of the literature was completed.

 Conclusion

This scoping review aimed to describe and review the qualitative research articles which explore children’s experiences of play in digital spaces. Specifically, we sought to examine the evidence of representations of play in digital spaces that has personal and ecological relevance through being embedded in the daily lives of children and their families. Children’s experiences of play in digital spaces has been utilised by researchers to explore a variety of categories, from children’s learning, health promotion, to societal norms and behaviours. The focus of research articles on free play or play devoid of secondary purposes did not consistently demonstrate personal and ecological relevance to the children. To extend the knowledge regarding children’s perspectives of play in digital spaces and to begin to shift societal discourses, research must be contextualised and clearly positioned from the perspective of child [4,11,26]. This will help alter adults’ perspectives of the opportunities of digital spaces from the current discourse which is dominated by the negative consequences of screen time. In turn, elevate free play in digital spaces as an appropriate choice for children and their families.

This scoping review has identified a lack of articles focusing on children’s experiences of play in a digital space, and these perspectives are essential for parents, professionals, game designers, and policymakers alike to develop an enhanced understanding of play within this emerging space. For appropriate guidelines to be suitably developed for health promotion, an in-depth, thorough, and clear understanding of children’s experiences of play opposed to their use of screen time or any other passive engagements with technology. Play as an activity that is characterised by being initiated, organised, and controlled by the child themselves [8] is evident in both traditional settings of playgrounds and the outdoors but also within digital settings. Despite this, these experiences within digital spaces were not exclusively described as play within the literature. Thus, a change of language is therefore essential to ensure that children’s experiences of their primary activity is interpretated and described in language familiar to them.

By focusing our attentions of how research is approached, a child-centred approach can be adopted ensuring research is relevant to children’s daily life, ecologically relevant, focused on the occupation, and utilising methods of data collection maximising the child’s voice to be listened and shared.

 Supporting information PRISMA flow diagram.

(TIF)

 References UNCRC. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. 1989. James A, Prout A. Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood: Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood. London: UK Falmer Press; 1997. Green L, Holloway D, Stevenson K, Leaver T, Haddon L. The Routledge Companion to Digital Media and Children; First Edition. 2021. Clark A. How to listen to very young children: The mosaic approach. Child Care in Practice. 2001 Dec 17;7(4). Stuart Lester, Wendy Russell, England Play (Project), National Children’s Bureau. Play for a change: play, policy and practice: a review of contemporary perspectives: summary report. Published by Play England by the National Children’s Bureau; 2008. 60 p. Yogman M, Garner A, Hutchinson J, Hirsh-Pasek K, Golinkoff RM, Baum R, et al. The power of play: A pediatric role in enhancing development in young children. Pediatrics. 2018;142(3). doi: 10.1542/peds.2018-2058 30126932 Lynch H, Moore A. Play as an occupation in occupational therapy. British Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2016;79(9):519–20. International Play Association Scotland. Children’s Right to Play: A booklet for a Richer Understanding of Children’s Right to Play. 2016. Livingstone S, Pothong K. Imaginative play in digital environments: designing social and creative opportunities for identity formation. Information Communication and Society. 2022;25(4):485–501. Plowman L. Rethinking context: Digital technologies and children’s everyday lives. Children’s Geographies. 2016;14(2):190–202. Bronfenbrenner U. Toward an Experimental Ecology of Human Development. American Psychologist. 1977;32:513–31. The kaleidoscope of play in a digital world A Literature Review Digital Futures Commission. 2021. Moore A, Lynch H. Accessibility and usability of playground environments for children under 12: A scoping review. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2015;22(5):331–44. doi: 10.3109/11038128.2015.1049549 26065905 Min B, Lee J. Children’s neighborhood place as a psychological and behavioral domain. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2006;26(1):51–71. Ridgers ND, Knowles ZR, Sayers J. Encouraging play in the natural environment: A child-focused case study of Forest School. Children’s Geographies. 2012;10(1):49–65. Palmer S. Toxic Childhood: How the modern world is damaging our children and what we can do about it. 2nd ed. London: Orion Books Ltd; 2015. Livingstone S, Pothong K. Playful By Design: Free Play in a Digital World [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://digitalfuturescommission.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/A-Vision-of-Free-Play-in-a-Digital-World.pdf. Albarello F, Novoa Á, Castro Sánchez M, Velasco A, Novaro Hueyo M V, Narbais F. The social dynamics of multiplayer online videogames in Argentinian and Chilean family contexts: The case of Fortnite. Global Studies of Childhood [Internet]. 2021; Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85106244278&doi=10.1177%2F20436106211015997&partnerID=40&md5=27dc83b4300f21d653215a48fcf5a0ea. Brooker L, Siraj-Blatchford J. “Click on Miaow!”: how children of three and four years experience the nursery computer. Vol. 3, Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood. 2002. Curtin C. Eliciting Children’s Voices in Qualitative Research. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2001;55(3):295–302. doi: 10.5014/ajot.55.3.295 11723970 Curtin M, Fossey E. Appraising the trustworthiness of qualitative studies: Guidelines for occupational therapists. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal. 2007 Jun;54(2). Liamputtong P. Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. 2019. 1–2248 p. Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil H. Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews (2020 version). In: JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. 2020. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005 Feb;8(1). Aromataris E, Munn Z. JBI MANUAL FOR EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS. 2021. Fisher AG. Occupational Therapy Intervention Process Model. Fort Collins: Three Star Press, Inc; 2009. Fisher AG, Marterella A. Powerful Practice: A Model for Authentic Occupational Therapy. Fort Collins: Center for Innovative OT Solutions, Inc; 2019. Balmford W, Davies H. Mobile Minecraft: Negotiated space and perceptions of play in Australian families. Mobile Media and Communication. 2020;8(1):3–21. Barreto D, Vasconcelos L, Orey M. Motivation and learning engagement through playing math video games. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction. 2017;14(2):1–21. Bassiouni DH, Hackley C. Video games and young children’s evolving sense of identity: a qualitative study. Young Consumers. 2016;17(2):127–42. Brownell CJ. Writing as a minecrafter: Exploring how children blur worlds of play in the elementary english language arts classroom. Teachers College Record. 2021;123(3). Carter M, Moore K, Mavoa J, gaspard L, Horst H. Children’s perspectives and attitudes towards Fortnite ‘addiction.’ Media International Australia. 2020;176(1):138–51. Carter M, Moore K, Mavoa J, Horst H, Gaspard L. Situating the Appeal of Fortnite Within Children’s Changing Play Cultures. Games and Culture. 2020;15(4):453–71. Daneels R, Vandebosch H, Walrave M. “Just for fun?”: An exploration of digital games’ potential for eudaimonic media experiences among Flemish adolescents. Journal of Children and Media [Internet]. 2020;14(3):285–301. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2020.1727934. De Vet E, Simons M, Wesselman M. Dutch children and parents’ views on active and non-Active video gaming. Health Promotion International. 2014;29(2):235–43. doi: 10.1093/heapro/das064 23208151 Dixon R, Maddison R, Mhurchu CN, Jull A, Meagher-Lundberg P, Widdowson D. Parents’ and children’s perceptions of active video games: A focus group study. Journal of Child Health Care. 2010;14(2):189–99. doi: 10.1177/1367493509359173 20203134 Dodge T, Barab S, Stuckey B, Warren S, Heiselt C, Stein R. Children’s sense of self: Learning and meaning in the digital age. Journal of Interactive Learning Research. 2008;19(2):225–49. Fonseca RMGSD Santos DLAD, Gessner R Fornari LF, Oliveira RNG Schoenmaker MC. Gender, sexuality and violence: perception of mobilized adolescents in an online game. Rev Bras Enferm. 2018;71:607–14. doi: 10.1590/0034-7167-2017-0561 29562018 Hamlen KR, Gage HE. Negotiating Students’ conceptions of “cheating” in video Games and in School. International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations [Internet]. 2011;3(2):44–56. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-80054883366&doi=10.4018%2Fjgcms.2011040103&partnerID=40&md5=a4f2d241256f2a1a289c6d84c26b6b0e. Hannaford J. Imaginative interaction with Internet games. For children and teachers. Literacy. 2012;46(1):25–32. Huh YJ. Rethinking young children’s digital game play outside of the home as a means of coping with modern life. Early Child Development and Care. 2017;187(5–6):1042–54. Inal Y, Cagiltay K. Flow experiences of children in an interactive social game environment. British Journal of Educational Technology. 2007;38(3):455–64. Iqbal A, Kankaanranta M, Neittaanmäki P. Participation of the young ones in virtual worlds: A look at experiences and motivations. World Journal on Educational Technology [Internet]. 2011 Apr;3(1):16–27. Available from: https://ucc.idm.oclc.org/login?URL = http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2012-24263-002&site=ehost-live. Kahila J, Tedre M, Kahila S, Vartiainen H, Valtonen T, Mäkitalo K. Children’s gaming involves much more than the gaming itself: A study of the metagame among 12- to 15-year-old children. Convergence. 2021;27(3):768–86. Kutner LA, Olson CK, Warner DE, Hertzog SM. Parents’ and sons’ perspectives on video game play: A qualitative study. Journal of Adolescent Research. 2008;23(1):76–96. Leonhardt M, Overå S. Are there differences in video gaming and use of social media among boys and girls?—a mixed methods approach. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health [Internet]. 2021;18(11). Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85107231669&doi=10.3390%2Fijerph18116085&partnerID=40&md5=fd6fa07eb3a2a793109b42c86f70084f. 34200039 Maine F. The bothersome crow people and the silent princess: exploring the orientations of children as they play a digital narrative game. Literacy. 2017;51(3):138–46. Mertala P, Meriläinen M. The best game in the world: Exploring young children’s digital game–related meaning-making via design activity. Global Studies of Childhood. 2019;9(4):275–89. Monem R. Metacognition and self-scaffolding in MMORPGs: Case study of an adolescent male gamer. Qualitative Report. 2015;20(4):454–65. Nease B, Samura M. Adolescents’ Perceptions of “Cheating” in Gaming and Educational Settings. Simulation and Gaming. 2018;49(2):134–45. Olson CK, Kutner LA, Warner DE. The role of violent video game content in adolescent development: Boys’ perspectives. Journal of Adolescent Research. 2008;23(1):55–75. Sarachan J. Exploring the online playground: Understanding motivation in children’s virtual worlds. Journal of Gaming and Virtual Worlds. 2013;5(3):251–69. Seok HJ, Lee JM, Park CY, Park JY. Understanding internet gaming addiction among South Korean adolescents through photovoice. Children and Youth Services Review. 2018;94:35–42. Van Rooij AJ, Daneels R, Liu S, Anrijs S, van Looy J. Children’s Motives to Start, Continue, and Stop Playing Video Games: Confronting Popular Theories with Real-World Observations. Current Addiction Reports [Internet]. 2017;4(3):323–32. Available from: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85032691385&doi=10.1007%2Fs40429-017-0163-x&partnerID=40&md5=1f839e46354205065515f4351a05b3a1. Verenikina I, Kervin L, Rivera MC, Lidbetter A. Digital play: Exploring young children’s perspectives on applications designed for preschoolers. Global Studies of Childhood. 2016;6(4):388–99. Willett R. Online Gaming Practices of Preteens: Independent Entertainment Time and Transmedia Game Play. Children & Society [Internet]. 2016 Nov;30(6):467–77. Available from: http://10.0.4.87/chso.12155. Willett R. Domesticating online games for preteens–discursive fields, everyday gaming, and family life. Children’s Geographies [Internet]. 2017;15(2):146–59. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2016.1206194. Elias GS, Garfield R, Gutschera R. Characteristics of Games. MIT Press; 2020. Gee JP. What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Computers in Entertainment. 2003;1(1):20–20. Balnaves K. Digital ethnography development investigating children’s agency in Minecraft. In: F P., editor. Murdoch University, Australia: Academic Conferences International; 2020. p. 39–46. Beavis C. Young people, online gaming culture, and education. In: Handbook of Children and Youth Studies. School of Education and Professional Studies, Griffith University, Gold Coast Campus, Southport, QLD, Australia: Springer Singapore; 2015. p. 815–28. Faric N, Yorke E, Varnes L, Newby K, Potts HWW, Smith L, et al. Younger adolescents’ perceptions of physical activity, exergaming, and virtual reality: Qualitative intervention development study. JMIR Serious Games. 2019;7(2):1–9. Chen Y, Fanchiang H, Howard A. Effectiveness of Virtual Reality in Children with Cerebral Palsy: A systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials. Physical Therapy. 2018;98(1):63–77. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzx107 29088476 Brussoni M, Gibbons R, Gray C, Ishikawa T, Sandseter EBH, Bienenstock A, et al. What is the relationship between risky outdoor play and health in children? A systematic review. Vol. 12, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2015. 6423–6454 p. doi: 10.3390/ijerph120606423 26062038 Dickie V, Cutchin MP, Humphry R. Occupation as transactional experience: A critique of individualism in occupational science. Journal of Occupational Science. 2006;13(1):83–93. Lynch H, Hayes N, Ryan S. Exploring socio-cultural influences on infant play occupations in Irish home environments. Journal of Occupational Science. 2016 Jul 2;23(3). Dahlin Ivanoff S, Hultberg J. Understanding the multiple realities of everyday life: Basic assumptions in focus-group methodology. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2006 Jun;13(2):125–32. doi: 10.1080/11038120600691082 16856469 Kruegar R, Casey MA. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. 5th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2015. Creswell JW, Poth CN. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Chossing Among Five Approaches. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2018. Horgan D, Kennan D. Child and Youth Participation in Policy, Practice, and Research. Horgan D, Kennan D, editors. Routledge; 2021. Nicholson J, Shimpi PM, Kurnik J, Carducci C, Jevgjovikj M. Listening to children’s perspectives on play across the lifespan: children’s right to inform adults’ discussions of contemporary play. International Journal of Play. 2014;3(2):136–56. McCloy L, White S, Bunting KL, Forwell S. Photo-Elicitation Interviewing to Capture Children’s Perspectives on Family Routines. Journal of Occupational Science. 2016 Jan 2;23(1):82–95. Kilia M, Zacharos K, Ravanis K. Four- to six-year-old children using photographs as sources of information about space. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. 2015 Mar 15;23(2):164–82. Pierce D. Maternal Management of the Home as a Developmental Play Space for Infants and Toddlers. American Journal of Occ. 2000;54(3). doi: 10.5014/ajot.54.3.290 10842685 Dowdell K, Gray T, Malone K. Nature and its Influence on Children’s Outdoor Play. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education. 2011;15(2):24–35. Marsh S. ‘I worry about their social skills’: parents on children’s screen time in lockdown. The Guardian Newspaper. 2021; Mustola M, Koivula M, Turja L, Laakso ML. Reconsidering passivity and activity in children’s digital play. New Media & Society [Internet]. 2018 Jan 4;20(1):237–54. Available from: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1461444816661550. Arnott L. An ecological exploration of young children’s digital play: framing children’s social experiences with technologies in early childhood. Early Years. 2016 Jul 2;36(3):271–88. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Vol. 169, Annals of Internal Medicine. American College of Physicians; 2018. p. 467–73. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850 30178033 10.1371/journal.pone.0272630.r001 Decision Letter 0 Potenza Marc N. Academic Editor 2022 Marc N. Potenza This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Submission Version 0

19 Apr 2022

PONE-D-22-03218Children's experiences of play in digital spaces: a scoping reviewPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Loudoun,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 03 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Marc Potenza

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf  and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Review

The scoping review conducted by the authors is very useful given the developments in digital play, the increasing focus on children's rights and the relevance of knowing children's expectations and experiences in this regard and including them in further research. The article is logical and coherent, the aim clear and the methodology clear. I have a number of suggestions for the authors to consider:

1. The text refers to both play and free play - if both mean play in the sense of Article 31 UN CRC, then the addition of 'free' is not necessary (this is included in the concept of 'play' in the sense of voluntary and unscripted play); if, according to the authors, there is a difference between the two, then this could be explained.

2. I understand that a clear demarcation is needed, but I find it unfortunate that hybrid forms of play (combination of offline and online play) were not included, since the offline and online daily lives of children are now completely intertwined and they may no longer make a distinction in their play. In addition, I suspect that one would then also focus the perspective a bit more on the younger children as I expect that especially with them, the form of play is relevant (at least it would be interesting to find out). Perhaps this is something to elaborate on in future research.

3. The article contains a reference to a report by Livingstone and Pothong on playful by design; both scholars recently published an academic paper on the subject that the authors might want to mention in their article: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2022.2046128

4. I was interested in the 'shift in societal norms' that the authors refer to (see, among others, line 79) but they do not elaborate on it; perhaps this could be explained a bit more.

5. As part of the analysis, the 'personal and ecological relevance' (a.o. line 106) of digital play for children is examined. This is explained later in the article (see line 171), but I would bring the explanation forward. It was not clear to me what the authors meant by it so an earlier explanation would be helpful (and, as far as I am concerned, it could be explained a bit more).

6. From line 238 onwards, it talks about cheating and meta gaming: can the authors give examples of what is meant by that?

7. Finally, I would read the text again carefully because sometimes sentences did not seem to run quite right, see e.g.

Line 39

Lines 83-84

Lines 64-67

Line 257 (‘the’ missing at the start of this line)

Line 460

On a final note, It might also be interesting for further research to find out how play and digital play are different and if, from that point of view, research has been done into children's experiences, expectations and concerns. One difference, for example, is that digital play almost always takes place in a commercial environment (a factor that the Children's Rights Committee (and others) considers problematic for various reasons from the perspective of the right to play but also other children's rights). One example is the aforementioned study by Livingstone and Pothong, but there may be more.

Reviewer #2: This work focuses on a very important and topical issue since the use of digital devices by children and teens has become even more pervasive since the pandemic. I agree with the authors that the discourse largely remains from the perspective of adults and dominated by the negative consequences of increased screen time and sedentary behaviors. An article, therefore, focused on this topic is sorely needed and could contribute greatly to the scientific community. I suggest, however, that this article needs revisions to ensure that it contributes substantially to the discourse. The research question itself, especially the second question, is too vague and somewhat convoluted, "The scoping review will examine what evidence is available regarding children’s perspectives of play in digital spaces and how the daily relevance, personal and ecological relevance, and methods are approached within the research articles". Examing children's perspective of play in digital speaces is clear. Does the second question mean to examine methods used by the articles to examine the first question? If so, it shouldn't be "and methods". It may seem an irrelevant distinction but it makes the reading and purpose a little clearer. I would also like a clearer definition of "ecological relevance". It is used throughout the article and may mean different things in different scientific fields. The abstract notes that, "these perspectives are essential for parents, professionals, game designers, and policymakers alike" but there is little discussion of why this is essential. What will parents, for example, learn from their children's perspective of digital play that would impact their parenting? In general, the discussion piece would have benefitted from a clearer delination of the arguments (there was some repetition and unclear links between aspects of the analysis) and the relevance to the lives of children. The reader can get a little lost in the critique of the articles not included children's voices and wish for more analysis of how these digital platforms could/do provide opportunities for child centered play. There is some inclusion of this, I just wished for more clarity in some places and expansion in others.

Proof readings would be helpful i.e. line 484, 442, 512 etc.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Simone van der Hof

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Margaret O'Donoghue

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

 10.1371/journal.pone.0272630.r002 Author response to Decision Letter 0 Submission Version 1

17 May 2022

Dear Academic Editor and Reviewers,

Many thanks for taking the time to review the manuscript: PONE-D-22-03218, Children's experiences of play in digital spaces: a scoping review. Please see the responses below responding to each point of your feedback. The response is in italic directly below the comments made by each individual. We hope that the responses are to your satisfaction.

Academic Editor

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements.

Manuscript has been cross-checked with the formatting guidelines and style requirements.

2. You have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found.

This is not applicable for the scoping review – the minimal data set has been identified throughout the review. The databases and search terms have been fully described throughout the manuscript.

3. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data.

As highlighted above, this will not be applicable.

Reviewer #1

1. The text refers to both play and free play - if both mean play in the sense of Article 31 UN CRC, then the addition of 'free' is not necessary (this is included in the concept of 'play' in the sense of voluntary and unscripted play); if, according to the authors, there is a difference between the two, then this could be explained.

Throughout the text, play is referred to as the play in the sense of the UNCRC, therefore, we agree that free is not required as an addition to play. Free has therefore been removed from the text where necessary.

2. I understand that a clear demarcation is needed, but I find it unfortunate that hybrid forms of play (combination of offline and online play) were not included, since the offline and online daily lives of children are now completely intertwined, and they may no longer make a distinction in their play. In addition, I suspect that one would then also focus the perspective a bit more on the younger children as I expect that especially with them, the form of play is relevant (at least it would be interesting to find out). Perhaps this is something to elaborate on in future research.

It is particularly evident from the research that children do not differentiate between online and offline play as adults tend to do. There is some research by Kate Cowan and John Potter (https://doi.org/10.1177/2043610620941527), examining how the two intersect. I believe that this will evolve organically as our research progresses.

3. The article contains a reference to a report by Livingstone and Pothong on playful by design; both scholars recently published an academic paper on the subject that the authors might want to mention in their article: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2022.2046128

Thank you for highlighting the academic paper by Livingstone and Pothong. This has been updated accordingly in the manuscript.

4. I was interested in the 'shift in societal norms' that the authors refer to (see, among others, line 79) but they do not elaborate on it; perhaps this could be explained a bit more.

This has now been elaborated on to discuss the binaries that play is often positioned within as a result of an adult dominated discussion.

5. As part of the analysis, the 'personal and ecological relevance' (a.o. line 106) of digital play for children is examined. This is explained later in the article (see line 171), but I would bring the explanation forward. It was not clear to me what the authors meant by it so an earlier explanation would be helpful (and, as far as I am concerned, it could be explained a bit more).

We have been aware of ensuring that terms are clearly defined given that they may mean different things to different professions. Lines 48; 85-92 define and explain personal and ecological relevance, however, the sentence has been altered to begin: ‘Personal and ecological relevance refers to…’ to ensure it is explicit.

6. From line 238 onwards, it talks about cheating and meta gaming: can the authors give examples of what is meant by that?

A definition of metagaming has been included as well as examples of cheating within a virtual world.

7. Finally, I would read the text again carefully because sometimes sentences did not seem to run quite right.

A further proofread of the manuscript has been completed.

Reviewer #2

1. The research question itself, especially the second question, is too vague and somewhat convoluted, "The scoping review will examine what evidence is available regarding children’s perspectives of play in digital spaces and how the daily relevance, personal and ecological relevance, and methods are approached within the research articles". Examining children's perspective of play in digital spaces is clear. Does the second question mean to examine methods used by the articles to examine the first question? If so, it shouldn't be "and methods". It may seem an irrelevant distinction, but it makes the reading and purpose a little clearer.

Thank you for the comment. The order of the words in the second part of the research question provides sequence and cohesion for the findings that follow. However, by adjusting the question to:

“The scoping review will examine what evidence is available regarding children’s perspectives of play in digital spaces by exploring how the daily relevance, personal, and ecological relevance and methods are approached within research articles.” May help to make the distinction clearer.

2. I would also like a clearer definition of "ecological relevance".

This was also highlighted by Reviewer #1. From lines 85-92 – personal and ecological relevance is defined and described. However, the sentence has been reworded to ensure explicit defining of the terms.

3. The abstract notes that, "these perspectives are essential for parents, professionals, game designers, and policymakers alike" but there is little discussion of why this is essential. What will parents, for example, learn from their children's perspective of digital play that would impact their parenting?

Sentence altered to consider that this will inform and contribute to an enhanced understanding of play in digital spaces.

4. In general, the discussion piece would have benefitted from a clearer delination of the arguments (there was some repetition and unclear links between aspects of the analysis) and the relevance to the lives of children. The reader can get a little lost in the critique of the articles not included children's voices and wish for more analysis of how these digital platforms could/do provide opportunities for child centered play.

A further proofreading of the document has been completed to ensure a clearer and more succinct analysis.

5. Proof readings would be helpful i.e. line 484, 442, 512 etc.

Proof reading of the full document has been completed.

Submitted filename: Responsetoreviewers.docx

 10.1371/journal.pone.0272630.r003 Decision Letter 1 Potenza Marc N. Academic Editor 2022 Marc N. Potenza This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Submission Version 1

25 Jul 2022

Children's experiences of play in digital spaces: a scoping review

PONE-D-22-03218R1

Dear Dr. Loudoun,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Marc Potenza

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed all of the previous suggested revisions. The manuscript is, therefore, appropriate for publication. One minor editing requirement on Line 51, "Thiss" needs to be revised to "This".

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr Margaret O'Donoghue

**********

 10.1371/journal.pone.0272630.r004 Acceptance letter Potenza Marc N. Academic Editor 2022 Marc N. Potenza This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

1 Aug 2022

PONE-D-22-03218R1

Children's experiences of play in digital spaces: a scoping review

Dear Dr. Loudoun:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Marc N. Potenza

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE