Cited by 107Impact of Technology on AdolescentsSleep and related disordersDigital Media and Philosophy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 89 of the 89 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 110 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Understanding Links Between Social Media Use, Sleep and Mental Health: Recent Progress and Current Challenges

Open access
Scott, Holly, Woods, Heather Cleland·2019·Current Sleep Medicine Reports

Abstract

Sleep and mental health researchers are increasingly recognising the need to update our approaches to understanding the unique social, emotional and cognitive aspects of social media use, rather than simply considering it as just another hour of total daily “screen time”. In this review, we highlight some recent developments in this area, discuss ongoing challenges facing this field and offer recommendations for future steps. The sleep and mental health research literatures have made recent advances towards a more nuanced understanding of social media use: moving beyond a focus on simply duration of use, towards new insights into the role of content, context and experience of these online interactions. As this research area moves forward, a focus on high-quality measurement—combined with collaborative multidisciplinary approaches that triangulate insight from different methodologies and perspectives—can inform a more holistic understanding of sleep and mental health in today’s connected world.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review argues that sleep and mental health research must move beyond treating social media as generic “screen time” and instead examine content, context, and experience. It highlights recent progress in both literatures, identifies ongoing challenges around causality, measurement, and rapidly evolving platforms, and recommends high-quality measurement plus multidisciplinary triangulation.

Key findings

  • Sleep research has linked higher overall social media use to poorer sleep outcomes, including shorter sleep duration, later bedtimes, and poorer sleep quality; bedtime use is a strong predictor of poorer sleep outcomes independent of overall use. Proposed mechanisms include sleep displacement, cognitive arousal, and fear of missing out operating via behavioural and cognitive pathways.
  • Mental health findings for frequency/duration of social media use are mixed: some studies link more time to depressive or anxious symptoms, some find no significant associations, and some find positive outcomes such as reduced loneliness. A large-scale analysis indicated digital screen time accounts for very little variance in adolescent well-being.
  • Outcomes depend on platform, purpose, and interaction quality: image-based platforms like Instagram and Snapchat (but not text-based Twitter) were associated with decreased loneliness, especially when used to interact with known people; broadcasting content or interacting with strangers was linked to increased loneliness or negative social comparison. Cyberbullying is associated with poorer well-being, but effect sizes for poor mental health are similar to offline physical and relational bullying.
  • The authors recommend moving toward high-quality measures of motivations and experiences, triangulating multiple methodologies and disciplines, and using preprints to accelerate communication in a fast-moving field.

Methods

  • Narrative review of recent developments in sleep and mental health research on social media use, focusing on progress in the last 5 years, ongoing challenges, and recommendations for future steps.
  • No primary data collection or systematic review protocol is reported; the paper synthesizes existing literature and discusses measurement, causality, and evolving social media platforms.
  • The authors draw on examples from sleep and mental health studies, including cross-sectional, experimental, longitudinal, qualitative, and large-cohort work, to argue for more nuanced conceptualization and measurement.

Limitations

  • The authors state that available research primarily uses cross-sectional self-report data, so causality remains unresolved and relationships are likely bidirectional.
  • The authors state that the rapidly evolving social media landscape outpaces research, making measures quickly outdated and limiting generalizability across platforms, features, and norms.
  • The authors state that much research focuses on adolescents and young people, leaving other age groups understudied, and that measurement is often limited by single-item non-validated measures or platform-specific/pathologizing tools.
  • Evident from the text: as a narrative review, it does not report a systematic search strategy, inclusion criteria, or formal quality appraisal of included studies.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40675-019-00148-9

Cites

89 of 89 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

68 Not checked yet · 14 Own interpretation · 10 No basis given · 1 Supported so far · 1 Partly supported · 1 Own result · accuracy not yet measured

Verify all 108 references — free account
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 36
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 21
48 of 48
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Survey space often limits large cohort surveys to single-item measures of screen time or daily social media use.

    “with survey space often limiting large cohort surveys to single-item measures of”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No single methodological or theoretical approach can ever provide the full story.

    “Of course, no single methodological or theoretical approach can ever provide the full story”
2 of 2

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Show all 87 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 107

Metadata

Authors
Scott, H., & Woods, H. C.
Affiliations
University of Glasgow (GB)
Corresponding author
Scott, Holly
Venue
Current Sleep Medicine Reports
Published
2019-07-13
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
141-149
ISSN
2198-6401 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2960383546
Cited by
105
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 1
FWCI
22.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Sleep Medicine Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
University of Glasgow
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Digital Media and Philosophy
Keywords
social media use, sleep, mental health, screen time, social media content, measurement quality, multidisciplinary research, online interaction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review