Cited by 453Sleep and related disordersImpact of Technology on AdolescentsSleep and Work-Related Fatigue

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 21 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

The association between social media use and sleep disturbance among young adults

Open access

Abstract

Introduction Many factors contribute to sleep disturbance among young adults. Social media (SM) use is increasing rapidly, and little is known regarding its association with sleep disturbance. Methods In 2014 we assessed a nationally-representative sample of 1788 U.S. young adults ages 19-32. SM volume and frequency were assessed by self-reported minutes per day spent on SM (volume) and visits per week (frequency) using items adapted from the Pew Internet Research Questionnaire. We assessed sleep disturbance using the brief Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) Sleep Disturbance measure. Analyses performed in Pittsburgh utilized chi-square tests and ordered logistic regression using sample weights in order to estimate effects for the total U.S. population. Results In models that adjusted for all sociodemographic covariates, participants with higher SM use volume and frequency had significantly greater odds of having sleep disturbance. For example, compared with those in the lowest quartile of SM use per day, those in the highest quartile had an AOR of 1.95 (95% CI = 1.37-2.79) for sleep disturbance. Similarly, compared with those in the lowest quartile of SM use frequency per week, those in the highest quartile had an AOR of 2.92 (95% CI = 1.97-4.32) for sleep disturbance. Associations all demonstrated a significant linear trend. Discussion The strong association between SM use and sleep disturbance has important clinical implications for the health and well-being of young adults. Future work should aim to assess directionality and to better understand the influence of contextual factors associated with SM use.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In a nationally representative sample of U.S. young adults ages 19–32, greater self-reported social media use was associated with higher odds of sleep disturbance. The association was stronger for frequency of social media visits than for total daily volume.

Key findings

  • Median social media use was 61 minutes per day (IQR = 30, 135) and 30 visits per week (IQR = 8.5, 56.5).
  • Weighted sleep disturbance distribution was 42.6% low, 28.0% medium, and 29.4% high.
  • In fully adjusted models, compared with the lowest quartile of daily social media volume, the highest quartile had an AOR of 1.95 (95% CI = 1.37–2.79) for higher sleep disturbance.
  • Compared with the lowest quartile of weekly social media frequency, the highest quartile had an AOR of 2.92 (95% CI = 1.97–4.32) for higher sleep disturbance; associations showed a significant linear trend (all P < .001).

Methods

  • Cross-sectional analysis of 1,788 U.S. young adults ages 19–32 from the GfK KnowledgePanel, using data collected in the 18-month follow-up survey from October to November 2014.
  • Social media use was self-reported as average daily minutes (volume) and weekly visits across 11 platforms (frequency); sleep disturbance was assessed with four PROMIS Sleep Disturbance short-form items and grouped into low, medium, and high tertiles.
  • Chi-square tests and ordered logistic regression with survey weights were used, adjusting for sociodemographic covariates; sensitivity analyses used more parsimonious models, no survey weights, and continuous social media variables.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the cross-sectional design prevents determining directionality or causality between social media use and sleep disturbance.
  • The paper states reliance on retrospective self-report of social media use and sleep, without formal sleep studies or ecological momentary assessment, and notes that results cannot be generalized beyond ages 19–32.
  • The paper states that the 4-item PROMIS short form, rather than computerized adaptive testing, may have contributed to non-normal response data and limited sleep disturbance to an ordinal-categorical variable; it also notes that future work should examine a broader set of covariates such as mental health status.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.01.001

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 21 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 20 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 8
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 13
18 of 18
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Self-reported estimates of time spent on social media accurately reflect participants' actual social media use.

    “It was a necessary limitation that we relied on participants’ retrospective report of their SM use and sleep in completing the survey.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 11 social media platforms assessed capture the relevant social media use for this population.

    “The frequency variable was adopted from a Pew Internet Research survey asking participants to indicate how frequently they visit or use each of the 11 most popular SM platforms: Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Google Plus, Instagram, Snapchat, Reddit, Tumblr, Pinterest, Vine, and LinkedIn.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The sample remains nationally representative after excluding participants with missing data.

    “Responses were received from 1796 participants (55.2%), of which 1,788 participants (54.9%) had complete sleep data and were included in the analysis.”
3 of 3

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.

  • Complete-data count conflicts with social-media counts

    Minor

    The paper says 1,788 participants had complete data for the independent and dependent variables, but then says only 1,768 reported social-media volume and 1,781 reported social-media frequency. Both social-media measures are described as independent variables.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 33 references

1 of the 33 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 453

Metadata

Authors
Levenson, J. C., Shensa, A., Sidani, J. E., Colditz, J. B., & Primack, B. A.
Affiliations
University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
Primack, Brian A.
Venue
Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-04
Volume
85
Pages
36-41
ISSN
0091-7435 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2235566653
Cited by
447
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 53 · 2025: 59 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 55 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 50 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 11
FWCI
35.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (R01-CA140150, T32-HL082610)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and related disorders
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and Work-Related Fatigue
Keywords
social media use, sleep disorders, young adults, social media use frequency, sleep health
MeSH terms
Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Adult, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sleep Wake Disorders, Time Factors, United States, Chi-Square Distribution, Logistic Models, Young Adult, Social Media

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 2026-10-08, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-08 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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