Youth, Smartphones and Social Media Use

Download Youth, Smartphones and Social Media Use [PDF]


In this section, current research is presented on youth smartphone and social media use, two experiences that are highly connected given that smartphones are a primary way of accessing social media and social networking sites (Kuss & Griffiths, 2017). Although this is still an area of emerging research, this page will present some promising practices that you can incorporate into your work supporting young people. As new research becomes available, the information on this page will be updated.

Adolescence is the phase of life between childhood and adulthood, typically ages 10 to 19 (World Health Organization, n.d.). However, research into smartphones and social media can also include young people up to 24 years of age. Today’s youth, a generation of young people who are sometimes referred to as “Gen Z,” “Digital Natives” or “iGen,” have grown up using the Internet and other digital technologies from a very young age (Twenge, 2017). The way young people engage with technology today is an area that attracts discussion and debate. The term “addiction” is often used in the news media when referring to excessive technology use (Yu & Sussman, 2020). There has also been increased concern about this topic in recent years given the increased time spent online and using digital technologies during the COVID-19 pandemic (Masaeli & Farhadi, 2021).

It is important to note that there is no formal clinical diagnosis for smartphone, social media or Internet addiction in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM–5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) or the International Classification of Diseases (11th ed.; ICD-11; World Health Organization, 2020). To date, only Internet gaming disorder has received formal recognition in the ICD-11 and has been included in the DSM-5 as a condition requiring further research (Parekh, 2018; World Health Organization, 2020).

At the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), we recommend using person-first language that reduces stigma and does not pathologize young people’s experiences. For example, “youth who engage with/have a relationship with technology” acknowledges both the beneficial and detrimental aspects of technology use. When a young individual is experiencing significant harms related to their technology use, we suggest using terms such as “youth experiencing” problem technology use (PTU), problem smartphone use (PSU) or problem social media use (PSMU). Using these terms rather than “addiction” can help to reduce stigma.

It also acknowledges how people’s relationship to technology can change across time and different contexts, and that there is no fixed, universal diagnostic criteria or threshold for harmful smartphone or social media use (Throuvala et al., 2019; Yu & Sussman, 2020). This is supported by the research that suggests moving away from an addiction framework and considers sociocultural contexts of technology use, balancing problematic use with functional, enjoyable use and an individual’s motivations for using technology (Panova & Carbonnell, 2018).

What does the evidence say?


The 2019 CAMH Ontario Student Drug Use and Health Survey is a longitudinal survey of the mental health and well-being of youth in Ontario. Although there are encouraging findings that show that the majority of Ontario students do not experience problem technology use, below are some key findings regarding youth technology use in Ontario (Boak et al., 2020):

The findings from this large, provincial survey were similar to those found across large-scale studies in the United States and internationally (Sohn et al., 2019; Twenge, 2017).

Negative impacts of PTU

In the last decade, across Ontario and North America, social media use has significantly increased in parallel with the number of children and adolescents reporting moderate to severe mental distress, including suicidal ideation or attempts (Abi-Jaoude et al., 2020; Boak et al., 2020). Today’s youth also report lower life satisfaction and higher rates of loneliness compared to previous generations (Fischer-Grote et al., 2021; Twenge, 2017). Although it is difficult for researchers to definitively say this rise in mental distress is related to the arrival of smartphone technology and social media, empirical, cross-sectional, longitudinal research links the increased prevalence in technology with depression, anxiety, chronic stress and low self-esteem (Abi-Jaoude et al., 2020; Elhai et al., 2017; Twenge, 2017).

Multiple systematic reviews of studies conducted across many countries (including the UK, China, Germany, Japan, Finland, Israel and the USA) have found that, for young people, excessive smartphone use was associated with an increased risk of depression and anxiety, high levels of perceived stress levels, and poor sleep quality and shorter sleep duration (Sohn et al., 2019; Thomée, 2018). Sleep quality, in particular, is thought to be negatively affected by technology use and can result in later bedtimes, sleep onset latency, shorter sleep duration, insomnia or sleep problems, reduced sleep quality and reduced daytime functioning due to tiredness (Thomée, 2018). Phone use around bedtime was also found to be associated with depressive symptoms, anxiety and stress, low self-esteem and, in some instances, reduced cognitive performance (Thomée, 2018).

Social media has also been shown to affect young people’s self-image and interpersonal relationships, promote social comparison, and facilitate cyberbullying and self-harming behaviours (Abi-Jaoude et al., 2020). Increased media multitasking (i.e., moving between multiple social media applications) can also negatively affect sleep, cognitive control, academic performance and socioemotional functioning (Abi-Jaoude et al., 2020). Young people today also have to navigate interacting with a range of potentially harmful content such as misinformation, conspiracy theories and deliberately polarizing content (Jiang et al., 2021).

A number of studies have highlighted that young females are more at risk of experiencing PSU, PSMU and cyberbullying than males (Boak et al., 2020; Twenge 2017; Yu & Sussman, 2020). They are also more likely to report mental distress, self-injuring behaviour and suicidality related to their smartphone or social media use (Abi-Jaoude et al., 2020).

Suicide. It is important to note that there is significant research linking problem technology use to increased risk of non-suicidal self-harming behaviours, suicidal ideation and exposure to harmful content or “challenges” online (Deslands & Coutinho, 2020; Thomée, 2018; Steinbüchel et al., 2018). These online challenges take place on social media platforms where young people are encouraged to take part in risky and/or self-harming behaviour and document it on the platform, sometimes triggering competition between individuals. An example of this would be ingesting harmful substances, such as the “Tide Pod Challenge” or drinking alcohol gel (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 2018; Deslands & Coutinho, 2020).

Data for young people in North America indicates that risk for suicide increases with screen time of two or more hours per day (five or more hours per day was linked to considerably higher risk for suicide; Twenge, 2017). One of the contributing factors to this risk might be that two thirds of young people who experience cyberbullying have at least one suicide risk factor (Twenge, 2017). However, being online can also provide young people facing these issues with access to online support communities, crisis support and reduced feelings of isolation (Marchant et al., 2017; Thomée, 2018).

Positive impacts

Some of the most apparent positive impacts of social media and smartphones are increased social connectedness, identity formation, access to information and entertainment (Kuss & Griffiths, 2017; Ryding & Kuss, 2020). For some young people, being online also meets a basic need for safety and connection when gathering in person may not feel safe or may not be feasible due to safety concerns from parents or caregivers (Kuss & Griffiths, 2017). Young people also use social media and online communities in creative ways to produce digital media on platforms such as YouTube, Instagram and TikTok. These online communities and opportunities to create meaningful digital content allow young people to acquire and co-create knowledge and contribute to social causes they feel passionately about, like stigma reduction (Zahn et al., 2014).

Regarding social media specifically, one systematic review found that social networking platforms can provide opportunities to find social support, form an identity, build self-esteem, and support communication and learning for youth at risk of or experiencing depression or other mental health concerns (Best et al., 2014; Rice et al., 2014). Social networking in these instances can increase self-esteem, create a sense of belonging and social support, and lower barriers to self-disclosure, therefore acting as a desirable alternative to traditional help-seeking behaviours (Best et al., 2014).

Social media sites can also offer micro-boosts to young people’s self-esteem when they experience receiving a friend request or being “liked” or “followed” by peers (Cole et al., 2017). Finding sources of social support online can also be particularly meaningful for young people who have weaker in-person social networks (Cole et al., 2017). Online friends can be an important source of social support, particularly for 2SLGBTQ+ youth (Ybarra et al., 2015). However, it is important to note that rates of online peer victimization and sexual victimization are also particularly high among 2SLGBTQ+ youth, which means this group of young people may need spaces in which they feel safe and supported online.

There is also promising research that shows the use of technology, such as video games, in supporting psychotherapy and psychoeducation for young people (Ceranoglu, 2010; Jung & Gillet, 2011). Recently, there has been a large number of evidence-based mental health applications that are accessible to young people via their smartphones. Please see the Resources section below for more information.

Risk factors

So, what might predispose a young person to use technology in a harmful or problematic way? Some researchers have suggested that distracted, habitual and problem smartphone use are associated with the following factors:

How do I put this evidence into practice?

One of the challenges for professionals working with young people can be trying to determine when technology use becomes problematic or harmful, rather than something that is enjoyable or serves a function in the young person’s life. There is the added difficulty of trying to separate what behaviours a technological device such as a smartphone or digital device may be facilitating (e.g., playing video games, texting, e-mail, social media applications, media streaming, online shopping or pornography use; Ryding & Kuss, 2020; Yu & Sussman, 2020).

Screening for problem smartphone use

A lack of standardized criteria with which to measure problem smartphone use makes screening and assessment challenging for clinicians.

There are at least 78 validated scales of problem smartphone use, but many are based on DSM-IV or DSM-5 criteria for gambling disorder or substance use disorder, despite ongoing debate as to whether problem smartphone use should be considered an “addiction” as opposed to a “maladaptive behaviour” (Harris, Regan et al., 2020). Some screening tools use Griffiths’ (2005) six-component model of addiction (conflict withdrawal, tolerance, salience, mood and relapse) while others are an adaptation of Young’s (1999) Internet addiction test.

Comparing these scales to determine which is the most valid and reliable is challenging because some scales lack measures for internal consistency and test-retest reliability (Harris, Regan et al., 2020). However, one scale that has been found by several systematic reviews to be the most popular and appropriate for use with adolescents (Harris, McCredie & Fields, 2020; Thomée, 2018; Yu & Sussman, 2020) is the 10-item Smartphone Addiction Scale–Short Version for Adolescents (SAS-SV).

Originally developed to detect problem smartphone use with South Korean adolescents (Kwon et al., 2013), the SAS-SV’s reliability and validity have also been confirmed by research with 18- to 24-year-olds in the United States as an accurate indicator of problem smartphone use (Harris, McCredie & Fields, 2020).

The scale is currently open access and asks individuals for a rating of strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), weakly disagree (3), agree (4) and strongly agree (5) for the following 10 statements:

  • Missing planned work due to smartphone use
  • Having a hard time concentrating in class, while doing assignments, or while working due to smartphone use
  • Feeling pain in the wrists or at the back of the neck while using a smartphone
  • Won’t be able to stand not having a smartphone
  • Feeling impatient and fretful when I am not holding my smartphone
  • Having my smartphone in my mind even when I am not using it
  • I will never give up using my smartphone even when my daily life is already greatly affected by it
  • Constantly checking my smartphone so as not to miss conversations between other people on Twitter or Facebook
  • Using my smartphone longer than I had intended
  • The people around me tell me that I use my smartphone too much

SAS-SV scores of 31 for males and 33 for females have been proposed as a potential clinical cut-off point indicating problem smartphone use, although this has been interpreted by researchers with caution (Harris, Regan et al., 2020). We therefore recommend using the statements in this scale as a starting point to discuss harmful smartphone use with clients as part of your overall assessment to discover more about their experiences of technology.

Screening for problem social media use

The Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale (BSMAS) is regarded as an accurate and valid measure of problem social media use among adolescents (Bányai et al., 2017; Cheng et al., 2021). The scale is based on addictions theory and uses Griffiths’ (2005) aforementioned six-component model of addiction (Andreassen et al., 2017).

All items are scored on the following scale: very rarely (1), rarely (2), sometimes (3), often (4) and very often (5). During the last year how often have you:

  • spent a lot of time thinking about social media or planned use of social media?
  • felt an urge to use social media more and more?
  • used social media in order to forget about personal problems?
  • tried to cut down on the use of social media without success?
  • become restless or troubled if you have been prohibited from using social media?
  • used social media so much that it has had a negative impact on your job/studies?

BSMAS scores over 19 and 24 have both been proposed as a potential clinical cut-off point indicating problem social media use (Bányai et al., 2017; Luo et al., 2021). However, as with the SAS-SV, we recommend using the items in this screening tool as a starting point to discuss social media use with clients to determine if they are experiencing problem social media use.

Alternative measures of PSU/PSMU

Asking questions about the following categories has also been suggested by researchers an alternative source of discovering information about a young person’s technology use:

If a young person is gaming via their smartphone, it may be worth asking about their hours spent playing, player ranking/leaderboard scores or trophies they have earned (Harris, Regan et al., 2020; Ryding & Kuss, 2020).

The above measures can also be more valuable than measuring total screen time alone, which may not indicate what areas of a young person’s technology use (if any) may be harmful or problematic (Ryding & Kuss, 2020). Exploring these behaviours with the young person using a data monitoring app or their phone’s built-in settings can complement self-reporting data, which can often underestimate unconscious or compulsive behaviours. This option may be worth exploring with clients if they feel comfortable sharing this information (Ryding & Kuss, 2020). We recommend that you keep informed of current data tools available via applications and through the most popular smartphone operating systems (i.e., Android’s Digital Wellbeing settings and iOS Screen Time monitoring features).

Other areas worth exploring as part of your assessment with a young person can be some common risk factors and negative impacts of problem smartphone and social media use, such as:


Given the links between problem social media/smartphone use and increased risk of suicide, it is highly recommended that you carry out ongoing risk assessment for suicide and self-harming behaviours when working with young people. One suggestion from the research is to ask young people experiencing or at risk of self-harm, suicidal ideation or behaviours about their Internet and social media use during the assessment process. This could include asking about the role of images/videos and designing treatment plans that seek to maximize beneficial online behaviours and reduce harmful behaviours (Marchant et al., 2017).

For additional resources and information about suicide and crisis interventions approaches, visit our Suicide Evidence-Informed Practice page.


Research on effective interventions for young people experiencing PSU/PSMU is still needed. Whatever approaches you use in your work, it is important to consider the following general therapeutic guidelines when working with young people:

For specific intervention approaches, current research has predominantly focused on three interrelated areas:

Behavioural interventions

Behavioural interventions focusing on behaviour change are an effective way to begin to reduce harmful PSU/PSMU and can be used in combination with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and educational interventions (see below). Working with youth in a group counselling/support format also allows young people to participate socially, improve their interpersonal communication and share space with others going through similar experiences and emotions (Liu et al., 2017). Group counselling has also been linked to a reduction in feelings of depression, anxiety and aggression when paired with CBT and sports interventions (Liu et al., 2017). Sports interventions in particular can be a low-cost way for young people to reduce harmful smartphone or social media use and has been linked with an improvement in executive function, impulse control and redirecting attention (Liu et al., 2019).


Individual and group CBT sessions have been found to reduce self-reported levels of depression, aggression, stress, and anxiety, and can lead to improved peer relations (Khalily et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2017). Components of CBT interventions can include:

Education interventions

Providing education to young people about the risks and impacts of PSU/PSMU was an intervention component found throughout the research literature, whether it formed part of an individual or group intervention, or was part of a wider-level education/prevention program (i.e., school-based prevention; Khalily et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2019; Malinauskas & Malinauskiene, 2019). Education interventions can involve:


The main limitation to consider is that there is a large amount of growing evidence into problem smartphone use, problem social media use and problem technology use more broadly. As noted previously, there is a lack of agreement in the research how PSU/PSMU should be conceptualized, defined, or measured, and whether these behaviours could constitute a behavioural addiction (similar to gambling disorder or Internet gaming disorder) or whether they should be conceptualized differently (Harris, Regan et al., 2020).

Of the literature reviewed, many of the studies focusing on youth took place in South, Southeast or East Asian countries. This may limit the generalizability of some of the findings of these studies unless they are replicated with youth in North America (Malinauskas & Malinauskiene, 2019; Yu & Sussman, 2020).

Although the evidence reviewed on this page includes many large-scale trials, meta-analyses and systematic reviews, it has been noted by some researchers that only a small number of these studies used a longitudinal design or follow-up (Thomée, 2018). An overreliance on self-report data and convenience sampling in these studies could also be considered a limitation (Ryding & Kuss, 2020; Thomée, 2018). However, there are promising attempts to collect more objective data via randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with bigger sample sizes happening in this area of research (Yu & Sussman, 2020).

Additional resources

  1. 2019 Mental Health and Well-Being of Ontario Students: Detailed Findings from the Ontario Student Drug Use and Health Survey
  2. The App Evaluation Model: An evaluation model for mental health and addictions service providers and their clients to evaluate the suitability and effectiveness of mental health applications.
  3. Common Sense Media: A non-profit organization providing education and information about digital media including Digital Citizenship and age-appropriateness ratings for movies, TV, applications and games. It includes a helpful “Parents Need to Know” guide on cellphones, screen time and online privacy and safety.
  4. Additional resources about online exploitation and victimization of young people and ways to report online abuse and exploitation of children and young people.
  5. Problem Technology Use Evidence-Informed Practice page: GGTU’s evidence-informed practice page on problem technology use.
  6. GGTU's Suicide Evidence-Informed Practice page: GGTU’s evidence-informed practice page on suicide.
  7. Resources aimed directly at youth who may be at risk of or experiencing cyberbullying, or who have had personal or graphic images shared online or on social media.
  8. One Mind PsyberGuide: This non-profit website reviews mental health apps for their credibility, user experience and transparency.
  9. Resources aimed at families, caregivers and professionals for protecting young people online, including information about online exploitation, cyberbullying, healthy online relationships and boundary setting.


Abi-Jaoude, E., Naylor, K.T. & Pignatiello, A. (2020). Smartphones, social media use and youth mental health. Canadian Medical Association Journal192 (6), E136–E141. Available: Accessed March 10, 2022.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.).

Andersen-Giberson, D. (2016). What's in a game? Narrative therapy approaches with people who have relationships with gaming and online communities. International Journal of Narrative Therapy and Community Work, (2), 65–75. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Andreassen, C.S., Pallesen, S. & Griffiths, M.D. (2017). The relationship between addictive use of social media, narcissism, and self-esteem: Findings from a large national survey. Addictive Behaviors64, 287–293. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Bányai, F., Zsila, Á., Király, O., Maraz, A., Elekes, Z., Griffiths, M.D. et al. (2017). Problematic social media use: Results from a large-scale nationally representative adolescent sample. PLOS One12 (1), Article e0169839. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Best, P., Manktelow, R. & Taylor, B. (2014). Online communication, social media and adolescent wellbeing: A systematic narrative review. Children and Youth Services Review41, 27–36. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Boak, A., Elton-Marshall, T., Mann, R.E., Henderson, J.L. & Hamilton, H.A. (2020). The mental health and well-being of Ontario students, 1991-2019: Detailed findings from the Ontario Student Drug Use and Health Survey (OSDUHS). Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. Available: Accessed March 4, 2022.

Boumosleh, J.M. & Jaalouk, D. (2017). Depression, anxiety, and smartphone addiction in university students- A cross sectional study. PLOS One, 12 (8), Article e0182239. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Bozzola, E., Spina, G., Ruggiero, M., Vecchio, D., Caruso, C., Bozzola, M. et al. (2019). Media use during adolescence: The recommendations of the Italian Pediatric Society. Italian Journal of Pediatrics45 (1), 1–9. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. (2018, January 17). 'Do not eat': Teens warned against taking 'Tide pod challenge'. CBC News. Available: Accessed April 22, 2022.

Ceranoglu, T.A. (2010). Video games in psychotherapy. Review of General Psychology14 (2), 141–146. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Cheng, C., Lau, Y., Chan, L. & Luk, J.W. (2021). Prevalence of social media addiction across 32 nations: Meta-analysis with subgroup analysis of classification schemes and cultural values. Addictive Behaviors117, Article 106845. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Cole, D.A., Nick, E.A., Zelkowitz, R.L., Roeder, K.M. & Spinelli, T. (2017). Online social support for young people: Does it recapitulate in-person social support; can it help? Computers in Human Behavior68, 456–464. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Deslandes, S.F. & Coutinho, T. (2020). The intensive use of the internet by children and adolescents in the context of COVID-19 and the risks for self-inflicted violence. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva25 (suppl 1), 2479–2486. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Elhai, J.D., Dvorak, R.D., Levine, J.C. & Hall, B.J. (2017). Problematic smartphone use: A conceptual overview and systematic review of relations with anxiety and depression psychopathology. Journal of Affective Disorders207, 251–259. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Fischerā€Grote, L., Kothgassner, O.D. & Felnhofer, A. (2021). The impact of problematic smartphone use on children's and adolescents’ quality of life: A systematic review. Acta Paediatrica110 (5), 1417–1424. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Griffiths, M. (2005). A ‘components’ model of addiction within a biopsychosocial framework. Journal of Substance Use10 (4), 191–197. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Harris, B., McCredie, M. & Fields, S. (2020). Examining the psychometric properties of the smartphone addiction scale and its short version for use with emerging adults in the U.S. Computers in Human Behavior Reports1, Article 100011. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Harris, B., Regan, T., Schueler, J. & Fields, S.A. (2020). Problematic mobile phone and smartphone use scales: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology11, Article 672. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Hussain, Z. & Griffiths, M.D. (2018). Problematic social networking site use and comorbid psychiatric disorders: A systematic review of recent large-scale studies. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 9, Article 686. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Irish, L.A., Kline, C.E., Gunn, H.E., Buysse, D.J. & Hall, M.H. (2015). The role of sleep hygiene in promoting public health: A review of empirical evidence. Sleep Medicine Reviews22, 23–36. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Jiang, B., Karami, M., Cheng, L., Black, T. & Liu, H. (2021). Mechanisms and attributes of echo chambers in social media. arXiv. Available: Accessed March 22, 2022.

Jung, J. & Gillet, G. (2021). Psychotherapy mediated by videogames. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis102 (2), 281–296.

Khalily, M.T., Bhatti, M.M., Ahmad, I., Saleem, T., Hallahan, B., Ali, S.A.-e-Z. et al. (2021). Indigenously adapted cognitive–behavioral therapy for excessive smartphone use (IACBT-ESU): A randomized controlled trial. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors35 (1), 93–101.

Kim, B. & White, K. (2018). How can health professionals enhance interpersonal communication with adolescents and young adults to improve health care outcomes?: Systematic literature review. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 23 (2), 198–218. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Kim, S.-E., Kim, J.-W. & Jee, Y.-S. (2015). Relationship between smartphone addiction and physical activity in Chinese international students in Korea. Journal of Behavioral Addictions4 (3), 200–205. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Kuss, D.J. & Griffiths, M.D. (2017). Social networking sites and addiction: Ten lessons learned. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health14 (3), 311. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Kwon, M., Kim, D.-J., Cho, H. & Yang, S. (2013). The smartphone addiction scale: Development and validation of a short version for adolescents. PLOS One8 (12), Article e83558. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Liu, J., Nie, J. & Wang, Y. (2017). Effects of group counseling programs, cognitive behavioral therapy, and sports intervention on internet addiction in East Asia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health14 (12), 1470. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Liu, S., Xiao, T., Yang, L. & Loprinzi, P.D. (2019). Exercise as an alternative approach for treating smartphone addiction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of random controlled trials. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health16 (20), 3912. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Luo, T., Qin, L., Cheng, L., Wang, S., Zhu, Z., Xu, J. et al. (2021). Determination the cut-off point for the Bergen social media addiction (BSMAS): Diagnostic contribution of the six criteria of the components model of addiction for social media disorder. Journal of Behavioral Addictions10 (2), 281–290. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Malinauskas, R. & Malinauskiene, V. (2019). A meta-analysis of psychological interventions for Internet/smartphone addiction among adolescents. Journal of Behavioral Addictions8 (4), 613–624. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Marchant, A., Hawton, K., Stewart, A., Montgomery, P., Singaravelu, V., Lloyd, K. et al. (2017). A systematic review of the relationship between internet use, self-harm and suicidal behaviour in young people: The good, the bad and the unknown. PLOS One12 (8), Article e0181722. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Masaeli, N. & Farhadi, H. (2021). Prevalence of Internet-based addictive behaviors during COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. Journal of Addictive Diseases39 (4), 468–488.

Panova, T. & Carbonell, X. (2018). Is smartphone addiction really an addiction? Journal of Behavioral Addictions7 (2), 252-259. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Parekh, R. (2018, June). Internet gaming. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Rice, S.M., Goodall, J., Hetrick, S.E., Parker, A.G., Gilbertson, T., Amminger, G.P. et al. (2014). Online and social networking interventions for the treatment of depression in young people: A systematic review. Journal of Medical Internet Research16 (9), Article e206. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Ryding, F.C. & Kuss, D.J. (2020). Passive objective measures in the assessment of problematic smartphone use: A systematic review. Addictive Behaviors Reports11, Article 100257. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Sohn, S.Y., Rees, P., Wildridge, B., Kalk, N.J. & Carter, B. (2019). Prevalence of problematic smartphone usage and associated mental health outcomes amongst children and young people: A systematic review, meta-analysis and GRADE of the evidence. BMC Psychiatry19 (1), 1–10. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Steinbüchel, T.A., Herpertz, S., Külpmann, I., Kehyayan, A., Dieris-Hirche, J. & Te Wildt, B.T. (2018). Internet addiction, suicidality and non-suicidal self-harming behavior - A systematic review. Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik, Medizinische Psychologie68 (11), 451–461. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Thomée, S. (2018). Mobile phone use and mental health. A review of the research that takes a psychological perspective on exposure. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health15 (12), Article 2692. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Throuvala, M.A., Griffiths, M.D., Rennoldson, M. & Kuss, D.J. (2019). School-based prevention for adolescent internet addiction: Prevention is the key. A systematic literature review. Current Neuropharmacology17 (6), 507–525.

Throuvala, M.A., Griffiths, M.D., Rennoldson, M. & Kuss, D.J. (2020). Mind over matter: Testing the efficacy of an online randomized controlled trial to reduce distraction from smartphone use. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health17 (13), Article 4842. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Turel, O. & Cavagnaro, D.R. (2019). Effect of abstinence from social media on time perception: Differences between low- and at-risk for social media “addiction” groups. Psychiatric Quarterly90 (1), 217–227. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Twenge, J.M. (2017). iGen: Why Today's Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy--and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood--and What That Means for the Rest of Us. New York: Atria Books.

World Health Organization. (n.d.). Adolescent health. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

World Health Organization. (October 22, 2020). Addictive behaviours: Gaming disorder. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Ybarra, M.L., Mitchell, K.J., Palmer, N.A. & Reisner, S.L. (2015). Online social support as a buffer against online and offline peer and sexual victimization among U.S. LGBT and non-LGBT youth. Child Abuse & Neglect39, 123–136. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Young, K. (2009). Internet addiction: Diagnosis and treatment considerations. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy39 (4), 241–246. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Young, K.S. (1999). Internet addiction: Evaluation and treatment. BMJ319 (Suppl S4).

Yu, S. & Sussman, S. (2020). Does smartphone addiction fall on a continuum of addictive behaviors? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health17 (2), Article 422. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Zahn, C., Schaeffeler, N., Giel, K.E., Wessel, D., Thiel, A., Zipfel, S. & Hesse, F.W. (2014). Video clips for YouTube: Collaborative video creation as an educational concept for knowledge acquisition and attitude change related to obesity stigmatization. Education and Information Technologies19 (3), 603–621. Available: Accessed April 7, 2022.

Zhitomirsky-Geffet, M. & Blau, M. (2016). Cross-generational analysis of predictive factors of addictive behavior in smartphone usage. Computers in Human Behavior64, 682–693.