Peer-reviewed article

Review: Digital experiences and their impact on the lives of adolescents with pre‐existing anxiety, depression, eating and nonsuicidal self‐injury conditions – a systematic review

Katarzyna Kostyrka‐Allchorne, Mariya Stoilova, Jake Bourgaize, Miriam Rahali, Sonia Livingstone et al. · 7 Dec 2022

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Published systematic reviews provide evidence linking positive and negative digital experiences to adolescent mental health. However, these reviews focus on the general public rather than the digital experiences of adolescents with different pre-existing mental health conditions and so may be limited in their clinical relevance. We review publications relating to anxiety, depression, eating disorders and nonsuicidal self-injury to identify common and condition-specific digital experiences and how these may be implicated in the origins and maintenance of these mental health conditions. METHODS: A systematic literature search using a combination of mental health, digital experience (including social media use), and age of the target population terms was conducted on four databases. Detailed findings from the included studies were summarised using a combination of thematic and narrative methods. RESULTS: Five qualitative and 21 quantitative studies met the eligibility criteria for inclusion (n = 5021). Nine studies included adolescents with depression, one with eating problems, two with nonsuicidal self-injury and 14 with multiple emotional health conditions. The review identified six themes related to the target populations' digital experiences: (a) social connectivity and peer support; (b) escape and/or distraction; (c) social validation and social comparison; (d) accessing/creation of potentially harmful content; (e) cyberbullying; and (f) difficulties with self-regulation during engagement with digital media. CONCLUSIONS: Digital practices of adolescents with pre-existing clinical vulnerabilities are complex and encompass a range of positive and negative experiences, which appear to have common elements across different clinical populations. The literature is currently too limited to identify disorder-specific practices, with too few direct or indirect comparisons between conditions.