🎙️🎥 "
SUMMARY
The authors searched PubMed, Embase and PsycArticles for longitudinal studies published in English between 2014 and 2024 on the links between everyday digital use and youth health or well-being. The criteria target children, adolescents and young adults up to 25 years old, with the possibility of including samples defined by a mean age of 25 years or less. A longitudinal study is defined by at least two measurements taken from the same individuals, spaced at least three months apart (p. 3-4).
The search yielded 913 references before deduplication. The detailed results describe 266 studies retained after selection, plus one report identified outside the initial sorting, for a total of 267. The studies are divided into six themes: social media and mental health; digital addiction and behavioural consequences; physical and digital activity; digital health technologies and cognitive development; parental influence; digital well-being and risk behaviours (p. 5-7).
The conceptual framework associates the digital health determinants and Bronfenbrenner's ecological model, which situates usage within the interactions between young people, families, schools, and social and political environments. According to the authors, 131 studies, or 49%, were published after 2020, which they link to the increased interest during the COVID-19 pandemic (p. 3 and 6).
WHAT TO REMEMBER
A field dominated by digital addiction and mental health
The authors report 201 studies concerning Internet, 140 on social networks and 83 on video games: these technological categories do not form an exclusive distribution. On the other hand, each study is assigned to a single main theme. Digital addiction and behavioural consequences include 102 studies, social networks and mental health 69, compared to 18 for physical activity and 11 for parental influence. Anxiety and depression are the most studied health issues (p. 5-7).
Distinguish between intensive use and problematic use
The authors distinguish intensive use, defined by a high frequency or duration, from problematic use, characterised notably by compulsion and loss of control. They describe more consistent associations between problematic use and mental health difficulties than between intensity of use alone and mental health difficulties (p. 8). Important caveat: this passage also mobilises a meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies and a cross-sectional survey. It does not therefore, on its own, constitute a comparative longitudinal demonstration or proof of causality.
Results to be interpreted with caution
Only 15% of the announced studies (40 out of 267) come from low or middle-income countries. The associations are generally weak and depend on the initial vulnerabilities and context. The review does not allow for determining the meaning or extent of causal effects (p. 6 and 11-12).
TO ACT
The document is a literature review, not an operational guide. It notably describes intervention studies, but does not provide either a ready-to-deploy field protocol or a directly usable intervention tool. Its proposals are guidelines for research, prevention, and public policies.
Developing the skills of young people
The authors propose age-appropriate programmes for digital literacy and mental health literacy. They aim to help young people recognise harmful content, manage problematic usage, and mobilise online support spaces, particularly in the presence of offline vulnerabilities (p. 11).
Supporting parental guidance
They emphasise the need for interventions that strengthen parents' digital skills and provide a warm and structured relational support, rather than an approach based solely on screen time restrictions (p. 10).
Acting on platforms and inequalities
They call for regulation that integrates security from the design of platforms, transparency, and responsibility of industry actors. They also recommend integrating connectivity, skills, and digital protections into strategies for reducing health inequalities (p. 11).
Health Practical Suggestions: complement the messages focused on screen time with types of use, the content, the contexts, and the difficulties of control, without abandoning the measurement of duration. This proposal is a practical translation of the discussion, not an intervention evaluated by the review.
THREE PRACTICAL QUESTIONS
Should we mainly measure screen time?
Not only. According to the authors, studies distinguishing modes of use — passive or active, recreational or problematic — more regularly report time-oriented relationships than those using a global measure of screen time. Duration must therefore be complemented by practices and their contexts. The review, however, does not provide an aggregated comparative estimate allowing for the quantification of their respective importance (p. 8 and 11).
Do these studies prove that screens cause disorders?
No. Associations are generally weak and very few studies explicitly test the intermediate mechanisms, such as sleep disturbances, social comparison, or cyberbullying. The temporal succession of measures is not sufficient to demonstrate a causal link; the review cannot determine the direction or the magnitude of causal effects (p. 11-12).
What role for parents?
Among the 11 studies grouped in this theme, most associate some form of active monitoring, shared use, or support with modest improvements in mental health, behaviour, or online safety. Purely restrictive strategies show weaker and less consistent benefits, sometimes accompanied by more conflicts. These results describe associations, not a guarantee of effectiveness for every family (p. 10).
TO GO FURTHER
Health Practices: "Impact of excessive screen time and social media on the mental health of young people". A complementary reading whose indexed excerpt highlights the limitations of self-reported and cross-sectional data, as well as the absence of causal conclusion. The page was not fully accessible during the verification, so its date and the detailed description of the survey are not included here.
Supplementary sheet: https://www.pratiquesensante.com/blog/pratiques-15/impact-du-temps-d-ecran-excessif-et-des-reseaux-sociaux-sur-la-sante-mentale-des-jeunes-6000
Anses: "Uses of digital social networks and adolescent health — Know, evaluate, protect", december 2025. The PDF brings together the opinion of 16 December 2025 and the collective expertise report. Mainly focused on 11-17 year olds, this expertise provides complementary French insight into usage, platform mechanisms and health effects.
Anses opinion and report: https://www.anses.fr/system/files/AP2019-SA-0152-RA.pdf
HASHTAGS
#healthpractices #ScreensAndYouth #YouthMentalHealth #SocialNetworks #DigitalLiteracy #DigitalDeterminants #DigitalPrevention #LongitudinalResearch
VIEW ON HEALTH PRACTICES
What is well studied, what is lacking. The link between social networks and internalising disorders (anxiety, depression) is the most studied area. Physical health, cognitive development and research in low or middle-income countries are less studied (p. 11-12). These countries provide only 15% of studies (40 out of 267) (p. 6).
Limitations to be aware of before citing a result. Many studies rely on self-reported measures of use and health, with often short follow-ups. Few take into account confounding factors. The samples mainly come from high-income countries, school or clinical settings (p. 12). The review does not assess the quality of the studies (p. 3) and cannot determine either the direction or the magnitude of causal effects (p. 11).
To go further, order a research or documentary watch
This article : An editorial production based on
experience enhanced by artificial intelligence - The English version of the site is an automatic translation: the French version prevails - Click on the image 