Child, Adolescent and Youth Mental Health in the 21st Century

2. New and old drivers of young people’s mental health status

Abstract

This chapter explores the possible explanation for the declines in young people’s mental health status across most OECD countries. While social media and digital device use have been pointed to as potential culprits of the youth mental health decline, this chapter highlights both expert perspectives and evidence from the literature that in fact show multiple, intersecting drivers of poorer mental health. This chapter shows that young people’s mental health is shaped by a complex web of new and longstanding factors which are interrelated, and include social media and digitalisation, climate anxiety, economic insecurity, and global instability, bullying and academic pressure. The chapter gives particular attention to evidence of the impact of social media and digitalisation on youth mental health, and suggests the relationship is complex, context-dependent, and shaped by individual, social, and structural factors, although likely more negative than positive for mental health.

In Brief

There are intersecting new and older drivers of young people’s mental health status

• Young people’s mental health is shaped by a complex web of interrelated factors, both longstanding and emerging, including digitalisation, climate anxiety, economic insecurity, and global instability, bullying and academic pressure, with experts emphasising the cumulative impact of these overlapping stressors.

Figure 2.1. Expert-identified drivers of poor mental health amongst young people

Categories that were mentioned at least 5 times are shown in the figure

Note: 1. Alcohol use; housing insecurity; lasting impacts of the pandemic; political trends; peer relations; reduced physical activity; online misinformation; weakened family structures; child maltreatment. Experts were asked “Do you believe that there are any new drivers of good or poor mental health amongst young people?”.

Source: OECD Semi-Structured Interviews with Clinical and Policy Experts on Young People’s Mental Health, 2025.

• Both experts and the scientific literature point to a relationship between digital media use and young people’s mental health that is complex, context-dependent, and shaped by individual, social, and structural factors. Overall, experts saw the impact of digitalisation including social media on youth mental health as more negative than positive, and scientific evidence that more time spent on digital devices is slightly associated with poorer mental health outcomes for adolescents.

• Among digital media, social media use is most often linked to poorer mental health outcomes, though effects are typically small and inconsistent. Active versus passive engagement and platform type appear to matter, suggesting that “social media use” is not a single, uniform behaviour, and current evidence remains largely correlational, underscoring the need for stronger causal research.

• While digital engagement can contribute to distress for some, it also offers meaningful opportunities for connection, identity formation, and mental health support – highlighting the need for policies that enhance protective environments and promote healthy, inclusive digital participation rather than imposing uniform limits.

• Experts stressed that young people are very concerned about global threats, in particular climate change and global conflicts, and this is also reflected in a small number of studies. These studies show that59% of young people report serious climate‑related worry and that those exposed to conflict – as well as those exposed to more information about conflicts – tend to exhibit poorer mental health outcomes.

• Economic hardship and low socio-economic status are longstanding but increasingly pressing drivers of poor youth mental health, with experts highlighting financial insecurity, housing stress, and declining intergenerational mobility as priority concerns for this generation.

• Bullying, cyberbullying, and academic pressure are persistent risks to youth mental health, but recent data and expert insights suggest these stressors are becoming more intense and widespread.

Introduction

Neither the experts interviewed for this report, nor the scientific literature, point to a single driver of declines in young people’s mental health. Instead, both experts and the scientific literature reported multiple drivers some of which are relatively new, including digitalisation and climate change, others of which are longstanding, such as economic insecurity or poverty. Other factors, such as global conflict and political instability, have always been a mental health risk to varying extents, but may be experienced differently and more widely by contemporary youth due to information availability.

There are multiple, intersecting risk factors for young people’s poor mental health

The experts interviewed for this report identified more than 20 different risk factors driving recent declines in young people’s mental health. Some of these were mentioned by most interviewees: different forms of digitalisation and “information overload”, climate change, global conflicts, and economic insecurity; the school environment and academic pressure; bullying and cyberbullying; and hopelessness and fear for the future (Figure 2.2). New positive drivers on resilience and protective factors are highlighted in Chapter 3, Figure 3.2.

Figure 2.2. Expert-identified drivers of poor mental health amongst young people

Categories that were mentioned at least 5 times are shown in the Figure

Note: 1. Alcohol use; housing insecurity; lasting impacts of the pandemic; political trends; peer relations; reduced physical activity; online misinformation; weakened family structures; child maltreatment. Experts were asked “Do you believe that there are any new drivers of good or poor mental health amongst young people?”. Experts were asked “Do you believe that there are any new drivers of good or poor mental health amongst young people?”

Source: OECD Semi-Structured Interviews with Clinical and Policy Experts on Young People’s Mental Health, 2025.

Above all, experts saw the different possible drivers of poor mental health of young people as co‑existing and often interrelated. The drivers listed in Figure 2.2 were always part of a list of multiple drivers, and no expert identified a single cause of declines in youth mental health. Experts pointed to some factors that affect young people’s lives on an individual and material basis, for example the impact of screen use and relatedly less in-person socialising and exercise, exposure to harmful content online, poverty, the impact of bullying and cyberbullying, and academic or school-based challenges. Many, though, pointed to issues beyond young people’s immediate lived experience, including the threat of climate change and environmental threats, global conflicts and perceived geopolitical instability, and economic pressures including labour market uncertainty and housing shortages. Many experts indicated that it was the cumulative effective of these different factors that they believed to be especially problematic; one Northern European policymaker stated, “Today you’re constantly confronted with all the world’s problems… [that] is the major difference from the 1980s,” while another, from the Asia-Pacific region, commented, “We talk about hope—and how the certainty of hope has deteriorated for young people.”

It is important to note that experts were asked about new drivers of poor mental health amongst young people. While new challenges have arisen, longstanding factors continue to influence young people’s mental health including poverty and deprivation, adverse childhood experiences, exposure to violence, discrimination, stigma or conflict (McGorry et al., 2024[1]; Lund et al., 2018[2]; Kirkbride et al., 2024[3]; OECD, 2021[4]; OECD, 2021[5]).

Scientific evidence and experts do not give one clear picture of the mental health risks of digital devices and digital media

Young people – like the rest of the population – use digital technology for a large variety of reasons (Figure 2.3). Previous OECD work, and in particular How’s Life for Children in the Digital Age? (OECD, 2025[6]), has explored the relationship between digital device use and well-being outcomes, and educational performance. This report found that that digital device use has both positive and negative impacts on children’s well-being, educational outcomes, and mental health. On the positive side, moderate use of digital devices, particularly for educational purposes, can enhance learning and digital skills. However, the report also highlights that “excessive screen time”, especially more than two hours per day of recreational use (e.g. social media or video streaming), is associated with lower life satisfaction and increased symptoms of anxiety and depression, and sleep disruptions. Indeed, when it comes to young people’s mental health outcomes specifically, the type of digital media consumed or digital device used may matter, but existing scientific literature finds that effect sizes tend to be small and evidence is mixed.

Figure 2.3. Adolescents’ digital device use for leisure activities

Percentage of 15‑year‑old students who report using digital devices during a typical week by type of leisure activity

Note: 15-year-old students were asked "[H]ow much time do you spend doing the following leisure activities?" for each "Browse social networks (e.g. <Instagram®>, <Facebook®>)", "Browse the Internet (excluding social networks) for fun (e.g. reading news, listening to podcasts and music or watching videos)", "Communicate and share digital content on social networks or any communication platform (e.g. <Facebook®>, <Instagram®>, <Twitter®>, emails, chat)", "Create or edit my own digital content (pictures, videos, music, computer programs)", "Look for practical information online (e.g. find a place, book a train ticket, buy a product)", "Play video games (using my smartphone, a gaming console or an online platform or Apps)" and "Read, listen to or view informational materials to learn how to do something (e.g. tutorial, podcast)". For each activity, students were asked to respond on their use during a typical weekday and during a typical weekend day. Data refer to the percent responding to use digital devices for a given activity on a typical weekday and/or on a typical weekend day.

Source: OECD Secretariat calculations based on the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2022 Database. Originally published in OECD (2025[6]), How's Life for Children in the Digital Age? , https://doi.org/10.1787/0854b900-en.

The mental health and well-being impacts of amount of time young people (and their carers and wider entourage) spend on digital devices, and the type of activities they take part in and type of content they consume when using digital devices, has been a recurrent topic for policymakers, academics, clinicians, young people and their parents and carers, and the media in recent years. So far, evidence on the harms – or lack thereof – of “digitalisation” has been mixed (see Box 2.1. for a working definition of “digitalisation” and associated terminology).

Box 2.1. Key terminology – “digitalisation”, “digital media” and “screens”

This report follows the definition included in the OECD Going Digital Toolkit, and considers that “Digitalisation is the use of digital technologies and data as well as interconnection that results in new or changes to existing activities.” (Mitchell, 2021[7]).

Given the focus of this report, much of the discussion is on how young people interact with specific dimensions of digitalisation, and the following working definitions are adopted following recent OECD publications:

• “Digital technologies” are broadly defined to include networks (such as the Internet), hardware, software and technology-related services (OECD, 2023[8]);

• “Digital devices” are any hardware used to access, process, display, or transmit digital information (e.g. smartphones, tablets, computers, smart TVs);

• “Digital media” is content created, distributed and accessed through digital technologies (e.g. websites, streaming video, apps, games);

• Social media – social network sites and instant messengers, including content (image, video) sharing sites.

These terms were used to discuss general trends and patterns. Wherever possible, and wherever available evidence allowed, more specific terminology is used; however, exiting scientific literature is not consistent with use of terminology and also employs general terms such as “screen time” or “time online”.

Source: Mitchell (2021[7]), “Digital supply-use tables: A step toward making digital transformation more visible in economic statistics”, www.oecd.org/going-digital; OECD (2023[8]), Shaping Digital Education: Enabling Factors for Quality, Equity and Efficiency, https://doi.org/10.1787/bac4dc9f-en; OECD (2025[6]), How's Life for Children in the Digital Age?, https://doi.org/10.1787/0854b900-en.

When asked about the impacts of “digitalisation” on young people’s mental health, the clinical and policy experts interviewed for this report consistently saw both positive and negative impacts, but for most the impacts tended towards being more negative (Figure 2.4). From the interviews undertaken, there was no single digital device or technology that was identified by experts as being particularly positive or negative; social media, (online) gaming, and accessing inappropriate content (for example violent or sexual content) were mentioned as being problematic for some young people. Clinicians in particular generally insisted that the impact of digital technologies varied significantly from individual-to‑individual; for some young people online spaces including social media could be a valuable source of mental health information or community and peer-connection, while for others online activities (such as gaming, or social media scrolling) could harmfully disrupt other important activities such as sleep, schoolwork, or in-person socialising, and exposure to certain content (such as content on body image) could exacerbate some mental health conditions.

Figure 2.4. Expert clinicians and policymakers’ saw mixed impacts of “digitalisation” on young people’s mental health

Expert views expressed as part of semi-structured interviews

Note: Experts were asked “Do you believe that the impact of digitalisation, including social media, on young people's mental health is: 1) positive 2) negative 3) neutral 4) cannot say.” The two preceding interview questions brought further context: Do you have any views on the impact of smart phones, internet, social media, and digitalisation generally on young people’s mental health?; Do you have any views or concerns about one type of technology in particular? Are you concerned about the impacts on any sub-group of young people in particular?.

Source: OECD Semi-Structured Interviews with Clinical and Policy Experts on Young People’s Mental Health, 2025.

Two areas of the impact of digital technology use which experts pointed to, which appear to be less-well covered in the current scientific evidence base were exposure to (mis)information on mental health in online spaces, and the “amplification effect” of digital media and technologies. Regarding information on mental health, some experts pointed to the benefits of discussion of mental health topics in online spaces including social media, which was see as contributing towards increased awareness and decreased stigmatisation. At the same time, several of the experts suggested that not all of the information on mental health that young people were consuming was accurate or helpful, and that it may contribute to over-pathologisation of “normal” human emotions and/or tendencies towards self-diagnoses. Research into “mental health content” on social media, especially on TikTok, has suggested that this can be a useful source of awareness and peer support, but also can lead to repetitive exposure to distressing content and misleading diagnosis and treatment information (Turuba et al., 2024[9]; Milton et al., 2023[10]; Pretorius, McCashin and Coyle, 2022[11]).

Nine experts also highlighted what they saw as the negative impact of information overload or “amplification” of negative content in online spaces (including news websites) and on social media (see Figure 2.2. ). A clinician from central Europe noted, “digital media amplifies everything; because humans are wired toward negative affect, the net effect is probably negative,” while two policymakers from another central European country stated, “24/7 access to Internet media coverage, constantly informing about war, conflict, wars and so on. And they trigger an existential fear in children. [Children] just don't see the bright future.”

Multiple experts saw this “amplification” effect having a strong interplay with other global crises, such as climate change and global conflicts, with a cumulatively negative effect on young people’s mental health, adding to a sense of hopelessness. The “amplification effect” highlighted by the interviewed experts tended to be more generalised in terms of the content (for example, distressing news and current events rather than graphic content), but research does point to the negative mental health impacts of exposure to inappropriate or harmful content (such as unwanted sexual comments or material, coming across pornography and violent/gruesome material) in online spaces including social media (Mars et al., 2020[12]; Sumner et al., 2021[13]). Platform-specific studies show that apps featuring heavily curated or algorithm‑amplified content (Instagram, TikTok, YouTube) are associated with more negative mental‑health outcomes (Metzler and Garcia, 2023[14]).

The scientific evidence on use of digital technologies and digital media consumption and mental health outcomes for young people is extensive, and shows small negative outcomes for some patterns of use, but is limited by its reliance on correlational findings and self-reported measures prone to recall bias (Baird et al., 2025[15]; WHO Europe, 2025[16]; OECD, 2024[17]). It is also generally difficult to establish directionality between digitalisation and youth mental health; in particular, whether higher rates of digital technology use contribute to poorer mental health outcomes (with anxiety and depression the most commonly measured outcomes), or whether young people with poorer mental health use digital technologies more.

Baird et al. and Mansfield et al., both in the Lancet Child and Adolescent Commissions, underscore the complexities involved in distinguishing causality due to the multidimensional nature of both digital engagement and mental health outcomes (Baird et al., 2025[15]; Mansfield et al., 2025[18]). Considerable heterogeneity in findings across studies are evident that reflect the differences in methodologies, measures of digital exposure, and mental health assessments. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2023) conducted a comprehensive review and concluded that, while there is growing concern, the existing evidence base is not yet sufficient to support categorical claims about a net harm (Galea, Buckley and Wojtowicz, 2024[19]). Vuorre and Przybylski (2024[20]), using large‑scale longitudinal datasets from the United Kingdom, found no meaningful associations between digital engagement and adolescent mental health, even after testing hundreds of model specifications. Their work adds weight to the argument that previously observed associations may be overstated due to analytical flexibility and publication bias (Vuorre and Przybylski, 2024[20]).

At the same time, research suggests that digital communities can play a valuable supportive role. Studies show that young people with mental health conditions often build meaningful relationships online, where anonymity lowers barriers to connection (Batterham and Calear, 2017[21]; Gowen et al., 2012[22]). Peer-to-peer networks provide emotional support, practical advice, and a sense of belonging, helping reduce loneliness and encouraging help-seeking (Naslund et al., 2017[23]; Berry et al., 2017[24]). Digital interventions that combine peer support with clinical oversight have been shown to increase engagement in services, improve symptom management, and enhance recovery outcomes (Alvarez-Jimenez et al., 2019[25]; Gleeson et al., 2017[26]).

Nonetheless, despite methodological challenges and limitations, the existing academic evidence base suggests that for young people: there is a robust link between digital technology use and poorer sleep, with poor sleep a risk factor for poor mental health; there is some association between more time spent on digital technologies and poorer mental health outcomes, especially in cases of “excessive” use; that there may be some negative mental health impacts associated with social media use, but this relationship may well depend on individual user characteristics, and patterns of use. Most of the existing evidence base on digital technology use and mental health outcomes looks at older adolescents and young adults.

Digital technology use, especially before bed, is disruptive to children and adolescents’ sleep

The strongest evidence on the impact of digital technology use on child and adolescent well-being outcomes is on sleep amongst children and adolescents, and both the amount of digital technology use during the day and the timing of use (e.g. close to bedtime, during sleeping hours) appear to matter. Higher digital technology use – or, as much of the literature refers to, “screen use” – is associated with delayed sleep onset and poorer sleep quality regardless of when during the day the screen time happens (Hysing et al., 2015[27]; Lissak, 2018[28]; Carter et al., 2016[29]; Pagano, Bacaro and Crocetti, 2023[30]; Paulich et al., 2021[31]). These findings extend to both very young and older children; children aged 6‑36 months who frequently used touchscreens slept on average 15 minutes less per night and took longer to fall asleep (Cheung et al., 2017[32]), while 12‑13 year‑olds with devices in the bedroom reported significantly shorter sleep and more fatigue one year later (Falbe et al., 2015[33]). Multiple studies have found that when adolescents use screens in the two hours before bed they have more disturbed sleep (Yu et al., 2024[34]; Hartley et al., 2022[35]; Pagano, Bacaro and Crocetti, 2023[30]). A large‑scale school-based survey of over 2 500 French adolescents aged 12‑19 found that using screens for more than two hours in the evening doubled the odds of sleep deprivation, while night-time use increased the risk more than fivefold; both patterns were also linked to daytime fatigue, irritability, and poor academic concentration (Hartley et al., 2022[35]). Two studies from the United States (Burnell et al., 2024[36]) and from Scotland (Woods and Scott, 2016[37]) found that night-time digital media device use (e.g. checking feeds in bed, being woken by alerts) was a stronger predictor of poor sleep than overall daily use. Mechanisms for the disruption of sleep by screen use include the stimulating content of media (Cheung et al., 2017[32]), the displacement of physical activity and rest (Chahal et al., 2012[38]), and suppression of melatonin from evening exposure to bright LED screens, which disrupts circadian rhythms (Cajochen et al., 2011[39]; Figueiro and Overington, 2016[40]).

Intervention evidence is equally strong. In Switzerland, restricting screen use after 9 p.m. advanced sleep onset and increased total sleep duration, leading to measurable improvements in vigilance during the school day (Perrault et al., 2019[41]). U.S. nationally representative data on 16‑19 year‑olds showed that meeting the screen time guideline (≤2 hours daily) was associated with 55% lower odds of poor sleep quality, with especially strong protective effects among boys who also engaged in regular physical activity (Xu et al., 2019[42]).

These disruptions in physical activity and sleep have downstream effects on mental health. There is a direct relationship between sleep deficits and mood and cognitive problems (Barnett, 2008[43]); consistent evidence shows that in adolescents, reduced sleep duration or quality are associated with higher rates of mood, anxiety, substance use and behavioural disorders (Zhang et al., 2017[44]; Woodfield, Butler and Tsappis, 2024[45]; Qiu and Morales-Muñoz, 2022[46]). Short et al. (2020[47]) found that sleep loss related to evening screen use impairs mood regulation, increases emotional reactivity, and contributes to the onset of depressive symptoms in adolescents.

More time spent on digital devices is slightly associated with poorer mental health outcomes for adolescents

A significant amount of research has been done on amount of time spent on the impact of time spent on digital technologies – often referred to as “screen time” – on mental health and well-being outcomes, as well as on other important outcomes such as attention and educational performance. Much of this research has already been well-covered in recent OECD work (OECD, 2025[6]; OECD, 2024[17]; OECD, 2024[48]), especially the fact that some well-being benefits can be found at the lower end of screen time use and some negative outcomes found at the upper end of screen-time, so-called “excessive use”. This so-called “Goldilocks hypothesis” was first developed by Oxford University researcher Andrew Przybylski and colleagues (Przybylski and Weinstein, 2017[49]; Orben and Przybylski, 2019[50]).

Most recent evidence, both that summarised in systematic and meta reviews and that drawn from new cohort studies or national surveys, appears to confirm that there is a small relationship between higher amounts of screen use and symptoms of mental health conditions and/or poorer overall mental health status, primarily focussing on adolescents. These studies showed a correlational relationship, and were not able to prove causation. For example, a 2023 systematic review again found associations between “excessive screen time” in adolescents and mental health problems; only 12 of the 50 studies reviewed found no effects of screen exposure on adolescent mental health, and the authors stressed that the type of screen (i.e. mobile phone, computer, television) mattered for mental health outcomes making assessments of overall “screen time” less useful (Santos et al., 2023[51]).

Analysis of cohort data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study of nearly 10 000 children age 9 and 10 in the United States also found small associations between “screen time” and depressive symptoms, including for screen use for video chat, texting, watching or streaming videos, and playing video games (Nagata et al., 2024[52]). The associations remained even after adjustments for sleep and physical activity, and effects were seen for each hour of screen time (ibid). Paulich et al. (2021[31]) also looking at the ABCD study found that more screentime is moderately associated with worse mental health, but that socio-economic status was found to be a more significant predictor of poorer mental health. Findings from a birth cohort study of 18‑year‑olds in the United Kingdom found associations between high levels of internet use with depression for females, and with increased risk of self-harm from males, but no association with risk of anxiety (Mars et al., 2020[12]).

A 2022 study amongst Canadian youths age 15‑24 using the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) found that anxiety, suicidal ideation, and mood disorder rose with screen time; those with “low” screen had better mental health outcomes than those with “average” screen time, who had better mental health outcomes than those with “high” screen time (Atwal and Browne, 2022[53]). Low socio-economic status was also strongly correlated with poorer mental health outcomes, and higher levels of screen time. Another Canadian study, this time from the COMPASS study of 17 000 adolescents aged 14‑18 further showed that high baseline use of screens predicted poorer mental health one year later. Heavy phone use was linked to a 46% higher risk of depressive symptoms and a 57% higher risk of anxiety, while television viewing of three or more hours daily increased risks of depression by 23% and anxiety by 25%, particularly among girls. Video game use showed a 35% higher risk of depression in boys, while internet and messaging use also predicted elevated risks, with messaging tied to a 22% increase in depressive symptoms (Mougharbel et al., 2023[54]). A large‑scale Canadian survey data confirm these associations, showing that adolescents with heavy daily screen use report markedly higher levels of depression and anxiety compared to peers with moderate or low use (Baiden, Tadeo and Peters, 2019[55]).

Some studies have gone further to link excessive or “addictive” use to more severe outcomes. Xiao et al. (2025[56]) analysed patterns of compulsive digital use in a US sample of early adolescents and found that youth with high and increasing addictive use of social media, mobile phones, or video games were significantly more likely to experience suicidal ideation and elevated internalizing and externalizing symptoms, despite no strong association with total screen time at baseline. For a wider discussion of the potential relationship between digital technology use and time spent online and suicide risks, see Box 2.2.

Two recent studies have found that reducing screen- or internet-use is associated with better mental health. In a randomised controlled trial in Denmark, families assigned to a two‑week screen reduction intervention (≤3 hours/week of leisure screen use) showed notable improvements in internalizing symptoms and overall behavioural health in children aged 6‑16 (Schmidt-Persson et al., 2024[57]). Similarly, a randomised controlled trial study found that short-term abstention from digital leisure activities led to modest improvements in mood and stress among adolescents, but these effects were not consistent across all participants (Pieh et al., 2025[58]).

One very recent global analysis on digital technology use and harms on mental health from UNICEF, based on cross-national survey data from over 250 000 children aged 9‑17 across 40 countries from EU Kids Online 2019 data, found no consistent or strong association between overall screen time and mental health outcomes, such as depression, anxiety, or self-harm (UNICEF, 2025[59]). While adolescents who spent more time online tended to report higher exposure to risks, time spent itself was only weakly linked with well-being when risk exposure was controlled for. The most robust predictors of poor mental health were experiences of online bullying, sexual harm, and discriminatory content. Children who reported exposure to sexual threats or harassment online were significantly more likely to experience emotional distress, sleep difficulties, and depressive symptoms. The report also notes that for many young people especially those with limited offline social support digital platforms serve as sources of friendship, identity exploration, and mental health information, contributing positively to well-being.

Box 2.2. “Online harm” – do online spaces increase the risk of self-harm and suicidal behaviour?

The possible impact of online behaviours on self-harming behaviours and suicidality amongst young people has been raised as a concern and has been a topic of media coverage in multiple OECD countries. While at the population-level there has not been a marked rise in youth suicides, there have been notable rises in hospitalisation for self-harm amongst young girls in some OECD countries (see Chapter 1, Figure 1.8). It has been hypothesised that time spent online can increase the risk of self-harming and suicidal behaviour, with two possible pathways: that online behaviours can reduce overall mental health making self-harming more likely; and/or that content online can “encourage” and/or provide practical “ideas” for self-harming or suicidal means.

Some of the scientific literature does suggest some link between greater social media use for girls and higher odds of self-harming (without controlling for type of content), and that certain online content and settings can normalise or even encourage self-harming behaviour which can act as accelerants for suicidal behaviour (Marchant et al., 2017[60]; Balt et al., 2023[61]; Rodway et al., 2022[62]). Exposure to a range of online “harms”, including cyberbullying, violence, sexual content, depression, and low-severity self-harm content has been found to increase odds of a suicide or self-harm activity (Sumner et al., 2021[13]). As with other mental health harms associated with digital technology use, individual, social and systemic factors influence vulnerability to such content (Thorn et al., 2023[63]). A qualitative study published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research highlights the importance of co-designing safety features with young people to ensure they are both effective and acceptable (Meyerhoff et al., 2025[64]).

Among digital media, social media use is most often linked to poorer mental health outcomes, though effects are typically small and inconsistent

Social media is likely the digital media type that has been most-examined for its impact on young people’s mental health. Based on a keyword search on PubMed alone, 2 469 results on social media, mental health, and youth were found from the last decade, compared to 584 for video gaming, 218 for television, 115 for online gambling, 49 for online news, 33 for online pornography, and 30 for (video) streaming.1 At the same time, where studies distinguish between different types of activities on digital devices, social media use does appears to be most consistently correlated with poorer mental health outcomes. For example, among UK adolescents aged 13‑15, heavy use of social media and the internet was strongly linked to poorer mental health, especially depressive symptoms, self-harm, low self-esteem, and low life satisfaction, with girls showing significantly stronger associations than boys. In contrast, time spent on gaming or watching TV showed weaker or no consistent links to mental health problems, highlighting that different types of screen time have different psychological impacts (Twenge and Farley, 2020[65]). Amongst adolescents in Iceland, more time spent on social media was weakly but significantly associated with increased symptoms of depressed mood, social anxiety and symptoms of physical anxiety over time. The relationship was stronger for girls than boys. It was not clear, though, whether the relationship was causal, or the direction of the relationship (Thorisdottir et al., 2020[66]). A study of preadolescent youth in Australia found that users of YouTube, Instagram and Snapchat reported more body image concerns and eating problems than non-users, but did not show differences in terms of depressive symptoms or social anxiety (Fardouly et al., 2020[67]). Evidence does not universally draw the same conclusion. A 2025 meta‑analysis of 46 studies concludes that current research does not support claims linking social media use to internalizing mental health disorders such as anxiety and depression in youth, pointing to methodological weaknesses in existing studies and recommending caution when attributing mental health issues to social media usage (Ferguson et al., 2025[68]). For example, a Norwegian cohort study of children age from 10‑16 years, found that changes in social media use was not related to changes in depression and anxiety symptoms (Steinsbekk, Nesi and Wichstrøm, 2023[69]).

The type of engagement with social media may matter. Thorisdottir et al. (2019[70]) found that passive social media use, such as browsing without interaction, was linked to higher levels of anxiety and depressed mood. Active use, like posting or messaging, showed weaker associations, and its benefits disappeared once factors such as self-esteem and peer support were considered. Course‑Choi and Hammond (2021[71]), in a review of 14 longitudinal studies, reported that passive social media use (scrolling, browsing) was consistently associated with increases in depressive symptoms of around 10‑15% over 12 months, whereas active use (posting, messaging, commenting) showed no protective effect and in some studies tracked with later rises in distress. Other studies in the review found that daily social media use exceeding 3 hours predicted up to a 20% higher risk of body dissatisfaction and a 15% greater likelihood of desiring cosmetic surgery at follow-up. While a scoping review of 79 studies examining the relationship between social media use and mental health among adolescents found that most research focusses on negative outcomes such as depression, with limited attention to positive effects, the review also highlighted the need for more nuanced investigations into different types of social media interactions and their varied impacts on adolescent well-being (Schønning et al., 2020[72]).

Most of the research on the impact of “social media” use has not systematically distinguished between different platforms. Woodward et al. (2025[73]), who did examine mental health outcomes for 575 young adults based on self-reported time spent on X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Reddit, Snapchat and Facebook found that greater use of TikTok and YouTube were consistently associated with more mental health issues (disordered eating, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, depression), while of Snapchat was associated with fewer mental health issues. A study assessing the use of four social networking platforms – LINE, Facebook, Twitter (now X) and Instagram – and their relationships with mental health amongst individuals aged 18‑39 in Japan found that the frequent use of LINE, Facebook and Instagram was associated with positive mental health outcomes (with variations by age group), whereas the frequent use of Twitter was associated with distressed symptoms or feelings of loneliness across all age groups (Sakurai et al., 2021[74]). A small number of studies have looked at certain platforms specifically, but do not appear to find any one particular platform harmful or positive for youth mental health. For example, a systematic review on the relationship between TikTok and mental health in adolescents found that while TikTok can foster creativity and connection among teens, reviewed research highlights risks like reduced life satisfaction, psychiatric symptom contagion, and problematic use, even as study results vary widely (Conte et al., 2024[75]). Another systematic review is more negative in its conclusions, suggesting that frequent use of TikTok was closely linked with an increase in symptoms of anxiety and depression, especially in users aged under 24 years (Jain et al., 2025[76]). Adeyanju et al. (2021[77]) reviewed peer-reviewed journal articles looking at Instagram use and depressive symptoms, which they found mostly looked at young Instagram users age 19 to 35, and concluded that “there is a strong relationship between Instagram use and mental health disorders such as depression or depressive behaviour; however, no in-depth direct causality is proven yet.” A review by Faelens et al. (2021[78]) found that most evidence could be found for the relationship between Instagram use and social comparison, body image, and disordered eating outcomes, but that evidence of a relationship between Instagram and other mental health variables is inconclusive.

Beyond looking at broad patterns of social media use and its impact on mental health outcomes, addictive‑like social media use appears to have been rising, especially amongst girls (Figure 2.5). Young people with Problematic Social Media Use (PSMU) have been found to also be at higher risk of depression or anxious symptoms (Bányai et al., 2017[79]; Lopes et al., 2022[80]; Shannon et al., 2022[81]); PSMU is not currently considered to be a clinical condition, and is not included in either the DSM‑5 or ICD‑11.

Figure 2.5. Problematic Social Media Use amongst 15‑year‑old boys and girls, 2018 and 2022

Based on a nine‑item measure, with six or more positive responses categorised as problematic users

Note: Problematic use is defined as answering “yes” to six or more of nine symptoms on the Social Media Disorder Scale. The OECD (27) average is unweighted. *Belgium is the average of its Flemish and French communities.

Source: HBSC (2023[82]), Health Behaviour in School-aged Children study – Data browser (findings from the 2021/22 international HBSC survey), https://data-browser.hbsc.org/.

Mental health risks of digital technology are moderated by family support, socio-economic conditions, and lifestyle patterns, and benefits should not be overlooked

Despite growing evidence on the potential mental health risks of digital media use, the current literature base is characterised by important limitations. Methodological weaknesses constrain the strength of inferences. Many studies do not distinguish between types of engagement (e.g. social media, gaming, messaging), nor do they account for contextual or individual factors that may moderate outcomes. Furthermore, observed effect sizes are often small, with practical significance debated. The field also faces challenges in isolating digital media as a causal factor, due to multicausality and the high likelihood of bidirectional associations between mental health and digital behaviours.

Most studies also do not take into account the impact of broader individual, social and structural factors on young people’s mental health outcomes from digital technology use; when they do, determinants such as higher socio-economic status, stronger educational engagement, or family and social support are moderating factors on harms (Mansfield et al., 2025[18]; Sala, Porcaro and Gómez, 2024[83]; Ledel, Låftman and Landberg, 2025[84]; Lahti et al., 2024[85]). Kandola et al. (2022[86]) highlight in a longitudinal cohort study showing that associations between screen time and mental health are heavily mediated by sleep and physical activity. Their findings suggest that sedentary lifestyle factors may be stronger predictors of distress than screen use per se, highlighting the importance of lifestyle context in interpreting screen time data.

The discussion in this report has primarily focussed on the relationship between digital media use and young people’s mental health, which tends towards finding small but negative effects, as part of exploring possible explanations for an apparent declining trend in young people’s mental health status. Nonetheless, it is important to recognise that young people’s digital engagement can support mental health, for example by widening social connection, identity exploration, and day-to-day emotional support. The OECD’s How’s Life for Children in the Digital Age? (OECD, 2025[6]) underscores that online spaces let teens “stay connected with friends and families” and build communities. Similarly, the OECD’s Digital Economy Outlook 2024 spotlight on “Mental health and digital environments” (OECD, 2024[17]) notes that online communication “offers many benefits for mental health and well-being,” while also acknowledging some of the risks associated with extensive use. Odgers and Jensen (2020[87]) argue that the dominant narrative of digital harm overlooks a more complex and often contradictory evidence base, that most young people engage with digital technologies in ordinary ways that do not lead to harm, and for particularly marginalised or isolated youth online platforms may provide crucial access to peer support and mental health information. OECD has previously emphasised moving beyond blunt screen-time limits toward improving the quality of engagement, digital skills, and supportive offline environments (family, school, peers), and it outlines a four‑pillar policy approach that includes education systems, parents/caregivers, and incorporating children’s voices (OECD, 2025[6]), and policies that foster benefits while mitigating risks – especially for groups at higher risk – rather than assuming uniform harms or benefits (OECD, 2024[17]). The specific mental-health benefits of digital technologies should also not be overlooked, including access to internet-based therapies, and potential for the use of new technologies including artificial intelligence, and immersive technologies such as virtual reality, as new therapeutic opportunities so long as the right safeguards are in place (Lehtimaki et al., 2021[88]; Dülsen and Baumeister, 2024[89]; Ma et al., 2024[90]; OECD, 2024[17]).

Climate change and increased global conflicts are seen by experts as mental health risks, amplified by the contemporary information environment

Compared to digitalisation, screen use and social media use, the effect of climate change and the indirect impacts of global conflicts on youth mental health have been relatively under-explored in the academic literature. These were, however, seen as part of a package of “global threats” that experts saw as negatively affecting young people’s mental health status (see Figure 2.2).

In their interviews to inform this report, clinical and policy experts rarely singled out climate change or global conflict as single drivers of mental distress amongst young people, but rather stressed that they saw a cumulative effect of these perceived threats affecting young people’s mental well-being. Experts saw these global events as mental health risk factors even when young people were not directly affected by them (for example, young people in these experts’ constituencies were usually not directly exposed to conflict, extreme climate events, or displacement caused by conflict or climate events). Quotes taken from these interviews give an impression of how experts perceive this broad mental health risk factor:

• “The broader climate of hopelessness about the future and the constant sense of disasters—such as the climate crisis, genocides, and wars—make it difficult for them to project themselves into a secure future.” Policy Maker from Southern Europe;

• “Young people are so, so aware of horrifying things happening throughout the globe… and… feel helpless and hopeless in their capacity to have impact.” Clinician from North America;

• “We have the socioeconomic crisis... we have the global climate change discussion, and we have the new situation for this generation... of wars in the neighbourhood... Wars are a burden for mental health of young people because they have the anxiety that war will come to Europe, this wasn't an issue for the last 20 years... [For young people who are not directly exposed] It's completely different to Ukrainian children, who experience traumatic and post traumatic disorders.” Clinician from Northern Europe.

Available academic evidence confirms that the global climate crisis appears to be affecting young people’s mental health and well-being even when they are not experiencing direct material impacts. A large global survey of 10 000 young people aged 16‑25 across ten countries, found that 59% were “very” or “extremely” worried about climate change, with more than 50% reporting feeling sad, anxious, angry, powerless, helpless and guilty, 75% describing the future as “frightening”, and 45% reporting that climate‑related worry negatively affected their daily life and functioning (Hickman et al., 2021[91]). Feelings of betrayal and abandonment were common, with more than half of respondents believing that governments were failing to protect them and future generations (ibid). Two surveys from Australia found that young adults aged 18‑24 exhibited significantly elevated levels of eco‑anxiety and PTSD symptoms in response to real or anticipated climate threats (Gunasiri et al., 2022[92]), and that 13% of Australian adolescents experienced persistent worry about climate change, which was strongly associated with depression (Sciberras and Fernando, 2021[93]). Evidence from a survey across 12 OECD countries indicates that young people aged 18‑24 are more likely to be emotionally affected by climate change, reporting higher levels of fear, anxiety, guilt, shame, and depression compared with individuals aged 65 and over (OECD, 2023[94]). The same data reports that more than 30% of young people feel helpless and powerless in face of climate change. The sense of helplessness and hopelessness highlighted by the experts and the research evidence, may reflect a limited perceived agency – which may partly explain why global challenges that do not directly affect young people can nonetheless significantly harm their mental well-being.

Children, adolescents and young people living in conflict zones or who have fled conflict zones are at consistently greater risk of mental health problems, including PTSD and depression, than usual averages (Ferrara et al., 2025[95]; Amsalem et al., 2025[96]). War and conflict have also been shown to affect the mental health of populations in countries not directly engaged (Kalaitzaki et al., 2024[97]; Kaman et al., 2025[98]). Looking at the impact of the war in Ukraine on 11 countries (across all ages), including bordering countries (Romania and Poland) and (distal countries, including Greece, Italy, Ecuador and Peru), with populations in bordering countries having a higher change of poorer mental health outcomes including anxiety, depression and perceived stress. Ukrainians reported unequivocally poorer mental health, on all measures, compared to other populations. A study of German adolescents found that war-related distress was a predictor of anxiety (Lass-Hennemann et al., 2023[99]), while a study of Dutch adolescents and young adults (age 13‑25 years) found that greater war-related media exposure predicted stress symptoms (Runze, Marten and Brinke, 2022[100]).

Risk factors including socio-economic status and economic opportunity are not new, but may be growing, and interact with vulnerability to other risk factors

Socio-economic status is a well-established determinant of mental health status (OECD, 2021[4]; Vargas Lopes and Llena-Nozal, 2025[101]; OECD, 2021[102]; OECD, 2023[94]); economic hardship and deprivation in childhood and adolescents contribute to poorer mental health outcomes across the life course (McGorry et al., 2025[103]; Reiss, 2013[104]).

Children and adolescents growing up in poverty, or experiencing financial stress such as unstable housing, food insecurity, or unmet basic needs, face a significantly higher risk of developing depression, anxiety, and behavioural problems (Edmunds and Alcaraz, 2021[105]; Gautam et al., 2024[106]; Bøe et al., 2017[107]; Golberstein, Gonzales and Meara, 2019[108]). As young people move into adolescence, their own perceptions of material deprivation, and financial stress are stronger predictors of depression/anxiety and behaviour problems (Miller et al., 2024[109]). Beyond individual hardship and family finances, macroeconomic conditions also play a role. The link between macroeconomic crises and population mental health – including suicide rates – has been well-covered (Karasoy, 2024[110]; van Gool and Pearson, 2014[111]; Huikari and Korhonen, 2020[112]), and youth mental health has been shown to deteriorate during periods of increasing cost of living, and higher unemployment or recession, and periods of family financial hardship (Bartelink et al., 2019[113]; Lager and Bremberg, 2009[114]; Klanšček et al., 2014[115]). In Sweden, a 20‑year analysis of more than 17 000 adolescents aged 15‑16 found that adolescents’ own worry about family finances was strongly associated with poorer mental health. These effects were most pronounced during the mid‑1990s recession, when worries about family finances peaked and accounted for much of the observed increase in adolescent psychosomatic symptoms (Kim and Hagquist, 2017[116]). The financial crisis in Greece also significantly affected youth mental health, with increased rates of depression and anxiety linked to economic hardship and parental unemployment, with adolescents experiencing worse mental health outcomes during periods of high parental unemployment (2011-2013) compared to later years (Kolaitis and Giannakopoulos, 2015[117]; Drydakis, 2022[118]).

Lower socio-economic status also leaves young people more exposed to other drivers of poor mental health, including the impacts of the COVID‑19 crisis, and the impact of digital devices or social media. During the COVID‑19 pandemic, nationally representative survey data from almost 55 000 adolescents in Korea showed that perceived family economic hardship was strongly associated with worse mental health outcomes; adolescents reporting severe hardship had more than twice the odds of anxiety, depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation compared to peers without hardship, with effects most pronounced in low- and middle‑income families (Kim et al., 2022[119]). In a review of young adults’ time spent on different social media platforms, socio-economic status was found to be a mediating influence on mental health (Woodward et al., 2025[73]). OECD (2025[6]) found that children from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds are more likely to experience negative mental health outcomes associated with digital media use, partly due to limited parental mediation, lower digital literacy, and greater exposure to online risks.

In many high-income countries, young people increasingly perceive themselves as economically worse off than their parents, reversing the postwar norm of steady upward mobility. Comparative surveys show that in the United States, the United Kingdom, and several European countries, fewer than half of young adults now expect to achieve the same standard of living as their parents, compared to majorities who did so a generation ago (Chetty et al., 2017[120]; OECD, 2018[121]). This decline in intergenerational mobility has been directly tied to mental health outcomes. A systematic review and meta‑analysis of 21 studies covering 157 763 participants across North America, Europe, Asia and South America found that downwardly mobile youth reported significantly higher rates of depression and anxiety than peers from stable high socio-economic backgrounds (Islam and Jaffee, 2024[122]).

Experts interviewed for this report did not overall point to socio-economic status or other economic factors most frequently as a driver of poor youth mental health (see Figure 2.2. ), but several experts did point to economic, employment, and housing insecurity as primary concerns. Policymakers from the Asia Pacific said, “Top drivers young people name now: climate anxiety, economic uncertainty, housing and lately cost of living.” A policymaker from Southern Europe, similarly, stated, “Surveys and both quantitative and qualitative studies carried out with this population show that lack of access to housing and precarious employment are the two factors with the strongest impact on the psychological distress of young people in my country.” This assessment is consistent with broader evidence highlighting growing economic pressures on well-being (OECD, 2024[123]).

Bullying, cyberbullying, schools and academic pressure can all worsen children and adolescent’s mental health

Bullying and cyberbullying are pointed to by the scientific literature, and by some experts, as risk factors for poor youth mental health, and possible drivers of worsening youth mental health. Frequent victims of bullying in childhood are more than three times as likely to develop depression and suicidal ideation in adolescence or early adulthood (Moore et al., 2017[124]). Man et al. (2022[125]), analysing data from 167 286 adolescents across 65 countries, found that verbal and psychological bullying including online harassment had the largest negative effects on mental health. The severity of harm increased sharply for those bullied more than 20 days per month, reflecting the toxic effects of chronic exposure. Cyberbullying introduces distinct and compounding mental health risks; cyberbullying can occur at any time, extend beyond school hours, and is often anonymous making it harder for victims to escape or seek timely support. Lee et al. (2026[126]) found that adolescents exposed to cyberbullying had significantly higher odds of self-harm and suicidal thoughts. Girls were especially vulnerable, with gender-stratified analyses revealing stronger associations between cyber-victimisation and emotional symptoms among female adolescents. Data from the HBSC surveys show that adolescents’ reporting having been victims of cyberbullying increased between 2018 and 2022 (Figure 2.6), especially amongst younger adolescents. Over the same period, bullying victimisation also rose, though to a lesser extent.

Figure 2.6. Cyberbullying and bullying have both increased in recent years, especially amongst younger adolescents

Adolescents who have been cyberbullied or bullied at school at least once or twice in the past couple of months, average across OECD countries

Source: HBSC (2023[82]), Health Behaviour in School-aged Children study – Data browser (findings from the 2021/22 international HBSC survey), https://data-browser.hbsc.org/

The school environment, increased academic pressure, or less clear academic expectations of children and adolescents were also highlighted as mental health risk factors by policy and clinical experts. One policymaker from a Nordic country said, “[in school] it has become much more difficult for children to know what is expected of them,” while a clinician from a Southern European country said, “[schools] are outdated… [they are not] fostering coexistence, desire, and critical thinking.” Reflecting on pressures on young people more broadly, a policymaker from a Central European country said, “there’s growing pressure to perform and to ‘self-optimise’ in order to adapt to a faster tempo of life, high expectations, and constant social comparison. Young people feel it, and social media makes the comparison immediate.”

The academic literature suggests that school and academic pressure can be a risk for young people’s mental health, and may be growing. A 2023 systematic review found that 92% of studies identified a positive link between academic pressure and mental health problems, including anxiety, depression, and psychosomatic symptoms (Steare et al., 2023[127]). The impacts of academic stress appear to start early in childhood. In children aged between 5‑12, a meta‑analysis covering on 76 studies 20 years of data and over 50 000 participants showed that higher test anxiety was strongly associated with depressive symptoms and lower academic self-concept (Robson et al., 2023[128]). A number of studies suggest a link between rising academic stress and pressure, and rising mental distress amongst adolescents. In Norway, longitudinal survey data of upper secondary students (ages 16‑19) between 2006 and 2019 showed that the proportion of adolescents reporting high psychological distress increased by approximately 30 p.p. among girls (from around one‑third to over one‑half) and by about 10‑15 p.p. among boys (from roughly 10‑15% to around one‑quarter), with school-related stress identified as a key explanatory factor, particularly among girls (Haugan, Frostad and Mjaavatn, 2021[129]). In Sweden, repeated cohort surveys of more than 20 000 adolescents between 1988 and 2011 showed that rising self-reported school stress statistically accounted for the long-term increase in psychosomatic complaints (Högberg, Strandh and Hagquist, 2020[130]). Analysis of nearly 1 million 11‑, 13‑ and 15‑year‑olds across 36 countries and regions in Europe and North America from the HBSC surveys (2002‑2018) showed that the share of 15‑year‑olds reporting schoolwork pressure increased from about 39% in 2002 to 54% in 2018. This rise was sharper among girls (45% to 63%) than boys (32% to 43%), widening the gender gap (Cosma et al., 2020[131]). Perceived pressure from schoolwork intensified further between 2018 and 2022. In the 2021/22 survey, 63% of 15‑year‑old girls and 43% of boys reported feeling pressured by schoolwork, up from 54% and 40% respectively in 2018 (Health Behaviour in School-aged Children study, 2023[82]).

Existing OECD work points shows that academic pressure can be a key structural determinant of well-being for children and adolescents. 2022 PISA data showed that students across OECD countries report high levels of mathematics-related anxiety, with 65% of all students worrying about getting poor marks, and 55% feeling anxious about failing (OECD, 2024[132]). Test anxiety is not simply a function of the volume of exams; countries such as Finland, despite mandatory standardised testing, report the lowest levels of test anxiety, while others like Portugal report the highest despite less frequent testing (Cignetti and Piacentini, 2024[133]). This suggests that education systems’ framing and support structures play a more decisive role in modulating stress than assessment frequency alone. A 2018 OECD paper points to how school climate, teacher-student relationships, and broader curricular approaches all influence student well-being (Choi, 2018[134]). Evidence from the OECD Survey on Social and Emotional Skills (SSES) underscores that competitive school climates and high expectations from parents and teachers are associated with increased anxiety, especially where social-emotional supports are weak (OECD, 2021[135]). The 2023 SSES edition reports a marked decline in social and emotional skills – such as optimism, stress resistance, and emotional control – as children grow older, suggesting that adolescence is a particularly vulnerable period (OECD, 2024[136]).

Mental health risk factors differ by age and stage of young people

In the context of this report, it was not possible to look in detail at how each mental health risk factor plays out for different age groups. Nonetheless, a rapid appraisal of the evidence does underscore how mental health risk factors can differ quite significantly between children, adolescents, and young adults. For example, very young children are more sensitive to impacts of their caregivers’ socio-economic status, or their parents’ mental health status, while young adults are more vulnerable to labour market or housing market insecurity. Orben et al. have suggested that the potential mental health risks of social media might also be age‑specific; drawing on longitudinal analysis of data from the United Kingdom, Orben et al. suggest that there are “windows of developmental sensitivity to social media”, and that during these windows – age around 11 to 13 for girls, and 14 to 15 for boys, more social media use predicts a decrease in life satisfaction a year later, while lower use predicts greater life satisfaction (Orben et al., 2022[137]).

Table 2.1 gives a very high-level overview of how some of mental health risk factors influence young people at different ages, using very broad age categories, based on the evidence cited as part of this report. Effects also very likely vary between and within countries (for example by gender, by socio-economic group).

Table 2.1. Mental health risk factors by age

	Children (age 0 – 10)	Adolescents (age 10 – 19)	Young Adults (age 19 – 25)
Digitalisation, screen use, and social media	Less available evidence, especially for social media. At least one study found small associations between “screen time” and depressive symptoms (Nagata et al., 2024[52]).	Mixed evidence across a broad range of evidence, that suggests small negative associations with some digital and social media on adolescent mental health. Adolescence may be a period where social media has bigger life satisfaction and mental health risks (see, for example, (Orben et al., 2022[137])	Mixed evidence across a broad range of evidence, that suggests small negative associations of some digital and social media on young adult mental health.
Climate change and global conflicts	No direct evidence.	Climate change and global conflicts appear to be priority concerns for adolescents, with some evidence of poorer mental health outcomes.	Climate change and global conflicts appear to be priority concerns for young adults, with some evidence of poorer mental health outcomes.
Socio-economic pressures, including poverty and employment.	Economic insecurity indirectly affects younger children, for example through parental unemployment or poverty.	Adolescents experiencing poverty or economic insecurity tend to have poorer mental health outcomes. Socio-economic inequality also affects adolescent mental health outcomes (Elgar, Pförtner and Rothwell, 2024[138]).	Young adults experiencing poverty or economic insecurity tend to have poorer mental health outcomes. Socio-economic inequality also affects young adults’ mental health outcomes (Elgar, Pförtner and Rothwell, 2024[138]).
Bullying, cyberbullying, and school-stress.	Data sparse for bullying and cyberbullying for young children, but many 11‑year‑olds report bullying or cyberbullying victimisation (Health Behaviour in School-aged Children study, 2023[82]). Limited evidence on school-stress, but text anxiety may begin in primary school (Robson et al., 2023[128]).	Bullying and cyberbullying are mental health risk factors, and cyberbullying may be rising. Academic stress and school-pressure can be mental health risks. Perceived pressure from schoolwork rose between 2018 and 2022 (Health Behaviour in School-aged Children study, 2023[82]).	Academic pressure correlates with poorer mental health for at least some college students (Beiter et al., 2015[139]).

References

[12] Abulseoud, O. (ed.) (2020), “Prospective associations between internet use and poor mental health: A population-based study”, PLOS ONE, Vol. 15/7, p. e0235889, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235889.

[77] Adeyanju, G. et al. (2021), “Behavioural symptoms of mental health disorder such as depression among young people using Instagram: a systematic review”, Translational Medicine Communications, Vol. 6/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s41231-021-00092-3.

[25] Alvarez-Jimenez, M. et al. (2019), “HORYZONS trial: protocol for a randomised controlled trial of a moderated online social therapy to maintain treatment effects from first-episode psychosis services”, BMJ Open, Vol. 9/2, p. e024104, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024104.

[96] Amsalem, D. et al. (2025), “The effects of war-related experiences on mental health symptoms of individuals living in conflict zones: a longitudinal study”, Scientific Reports, Vol. 15/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-84410-3.

[53] Atwal, S. and D. Browne (2022), “Screen Time and Mental Health in Canadian Youth: An Examination of Nationally Representative Data”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 127/4, pp. 1678-1704, https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941221139995.

[55] Baiden, P., S. Tadeo and K. Peters (2019), “The association between excessive screen-time behaviors and insufficient sleep among adolescents: Findings from the 2017 youth risk behavior surveillance system”, Psychiatry Research, Vol. 281, p. 112586, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112586.

[15] Baird, S. et al. (2025), “A call to action: the second Lancet Commission on adolescent health and wellbeing”, The Lancet, Vol. 405/10493, pp. 1945-2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(25)00503-3.

[61] Balt, E. et al. (2023), “Social media use of adolescents who died by suicide: lessons from a psychological autopsy study”, Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, Vol. 17/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-023-00597-9.

[43] Barnett, K. (2008), “The Effects of a Poor Night of Sleep on Mood, Cognitive, Autonomic and Electrophysiological Measures”, Journal of Integrative Neuroscience, Vol. 07/03, pp. 405-420, https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219635208001903.

[113] Bartelink, V. et al. (2019), “Unemployment among young people and mental health: A systematic review”, Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, Vol. 48/5, pp. 544-558, https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494819852847.

[21] Batterham, P. and A. Calear (2017), “Preferences for Internet-Based Mental Health Interventions in an Adult Online Sample: Findings From an Online Community Survey”, JMIR Mental Health, Vol. 4/2, p. e26, https://doi.org/10.2196/mental.7722.

[139] Beiter, R. et al. (2015), “The prevalence and correlates of depression, anxiety, and stress in a sample of college students”, Journal of Affective Disorders, Vol. 173, pp. 90-96, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.10.054.

[24] Berry, N. et al. (2017), “#WhyWeTweetMH: Understanding Why People Use Twitter to Discuss Mental Health Problems”, Journal of Medical Internet Research, Vol. 19/4, p. e107, https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6173.

[107] Bøe, T. et al. (2017), “Economic volatility in childhood and subsequent adolescent mental health problems: a longitudinal population-based study of adolescents”, BMJ Open, Vol. 7/9, p. e017030, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017030.

[74] Bollen, J. (ed.) (2021), “Who is mentally healthy? Mental health profiles of Japanese social networking service users with a focus on LINE, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram”, PLOS ONE, Vol. 16/3, p. e0246090, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246090.

[36] Burnell, K. et al. (2024), “Daily links between objective smartphone use and sleep among adolescents”, Journal of Adolescence, Vol. 96/6, pp. 1171-1181, https://doi.org/10.1002/jad.12326.

[39] Cajochen, C. et al. (2011), “Evening exposure to a light-emitting diodes (LED)-backlit computer screen affects circadian physiology and cognitive performance”, Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 110/5, pp. 1432-1438, https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00165.2011.

[29] Carter, B. et al. (2016), “Association Between Portable Screen-Based Media Device Access or Use and Sleep Outcomes”, JAMA Pediatrics, Vol. 170/12, p. 1202, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.2341.

[38] Chahal, H. et al. (2012), “Availability and night‐time use of electronic entertainment and communication devices are associated with short sleep duration and obesity among Canadian children”, Pediatric Obesity, Vol. 8/1, pp. 42-51, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2047-6310.2012.00085.x.

[120] Chetty, R. et al. (2017), “The fading American dream: Trends in absolute income mobility since 1940”, Science, Vol. 356/6336, pp. 398-406, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal4617.

[32] Cheung, C. et al. (2017), “Daily touchscreen use in infants and toddlers is associated with reduced sleep and delayed sleep onset”, Scientific Reports, Vol. 7/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep46104.

[134] Choi, A. (2018), “Emotional well-being of children and adolescents: Recent trends and relevant factors”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 169, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/41576fb2-en.

[60] Choo, K. (ed.) (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 ONE, Vol. 12/8, p. e0181722, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181722.

[133] Cignetti, M. and M. Piacentini (2024), “Beyond grades: Raising the visibility and impact of PISA data on students’ well-being”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 313, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/806233fe-en.

[75] Conte, G. et al. (2024), “Scrolling through adolescence: a systematic review of the impact of TikTok on adolescent mental health”, European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 34/5, pp. 1511-1527, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-024-02581-w.

[131] Cosma, A. et al. (2020), “Cross-National Time Trends in Adolescent Mental Well-Being From 2002 to 2018 and the Explanatory Role of Schoolwork Pressure”, Journal of Adolescent Health, Vol. 66/6, pp. S50-S58, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.02.010.

[71] Course-Choi, J. and L. Hammond (2021), “Social Media Use and Adolescent Well-Being: A Narrative Review of Longitudinal Studies”, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, Vol. 24/4, pp. 223-236, https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0020.

[118] Drydakis, N. (2022), “Economic recession, parental unemployment and adolescents’ health-related quality of life and mental health outcomes in Greece”, GLO Discussion Paper, No. 1134, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9827-6678 (accessed on 15 October 2025).

[89] Dülsen, P. and H. Baumeister (2024), “Internet- and mobile-based anxiety and depression interventions for children and adolescents: efficacy and negative effects - a systematic review and meta-analysis”, European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 34/1, pp. 101-121, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-024-02404-y.

[105] Edmunds, C. and M. Alcaraz (2021), “Childhood Material Hardship and Adolescent Mental Health”, Youth & Society, Vol. 53/7, pp. 1231-1254, https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118x211001896.

[138] Elgar, F., T. Pförtner and D. Rothwell (2024), “Socioeconomic differences and global trends in youth wellbeing and emotional distress in 165 countries and territories”, Health & Place, Vol. 89, p. 103322, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2024.103322.

[78] Faelens, L. et al. (2021), “The relationship between Instagram use and indicators of mental health: A systematic review”, Computers in Human Behavior Reports, Vol. 4, p. 100121, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100121.

[33] Falbe, J. et al. (2015), “Sleep Duration, Restfulness, and Screens in the Sleep Environment”, Pediatrics, Vol. 135/2, pp. e367-e375, https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2014-2306.

[67] Fardouly, J. et al. (2020), “The use of social media by Australian preadolescents and its links with mental health”, Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 76/7, pp. 1304-1326, https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22936.

[68] Ferguson, C. et al. (2025), “There is no evidence that time spent on social media is correlated with adolescent mental health problems: Findings from a meta-analysis.”, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, Vol. 56/1, pp. 73-83, https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000589.

[95] Ferrara, P. et al. (2025), “The silent wounds of war: Psycho-physical impacts and international legal implications for children in conflict zones”, Global Pediatrics, Vol. 14, p. 100287, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gpeds.2025.100287.

[40] Figueiro, M. and D. Overington (2016), “Self-luminous devices and melatonin suppression in adolescents”, Lighting Research & Technology, Vol. 48/8, pp. 966-975, https://doi.org/10.1177/1477153515584979.

[19] Galea, S., G. Buckley and A. Wojtowicz (eds.) (2024), Social Media and Adolescent Health, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., https://doi.org/10.17226/27396.

[106] Gautam, N. et al. (2024), “Socioeconomic inequalities in child and adolescent mental health in Australia: the role of parenting style and parents’ relationships”, Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, Vol. 18/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-024-00719-x.

[26] Gleeson, J. et al. (2017), “Moderated online social therapy for carers of young people recovering from first-episode psychosis: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial”, Trials, Vol. 18/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1775-5.

[108] Golberstein, E., G. Gonzales and E. Meara (2019), “How do economic downturns affect the mental health of children? Evidence from the National Health Interview Survey”, Health Economics, Vol. 28/8, pp. 955-970, https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3885.

[22] Gowen, K. et al. (2012), “Young adults with mental health conditions and social networking websites: Seeking tools to build community.”, Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, Vol. 35/3, pp. 245-250, https://doi.org/10.2975/35.3.2012.245.250.

[92] Gunasiri, H. et al. (2022), “Young people’s mental health in a changing climate”, The Lancet Planetary Health, Vol. 6, p. S1, https://doi.org/10.1016/s2542-5196(22)00263-7.

[129] Haugan, J., P. Frostad and P. Mjaavatn (2021), “Girls suffer: the prevalence and predicting factors of emotional problems among adolescents during upper secondary school in Norway”, Social Psychology of Education, Vol. 24/3, pp. 609-634, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-021-09626-x.

[82] Health Behaviour in School-aged Children study (2023), Data browser (findings from the 2021/22 international HBSC survey), https://data-browser.hbsc.org/.

[91] Hickman, C. et al. (2021), “Climate anxiety in children and young people and their beliefs about government responses to climate change: a global survey”, The Lancet Planetary Health, Vol. 5/12, pp. e863-e873, https://doi.org/10.1016/s2542-5196(21)00278-3.

[130] Högberg, B., M. Strandh and C. Hagquist (2020), “Gender and secular trends in adolescent mental health over 24 years – The role of school-related stress”, Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 250, p. 112890, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112890.

[112] Huikari, S. and M. Korhonen (2020), “Unemployment, global economic crises and suicides: evidence from 21 OECD countries”, Applied Economics, Vol. 53/13, pp. 1540-1550, https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2020.1838430.

[27] Hysing, M. et al. (2015), “Sleep and use of electronic devices in adolescence: results from a large population-based study”, BMJ Open, Vol. 5/1, p. e006748, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006748.

[122] Islam, S. and S. Jaffee (2024), “Social mobility and mental health: A systematic review and meta-analysis”, Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 340, p. 116340, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116340.

[76] Jain, L. et al. (2025), “Exploring Problematic TikTok Use and Mental Health Issues: A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies”, Journal of Primary Care & Community Health, Vol. 16, https://doi.org/10.1177/21501319251327303.

[79] Jiménez-Murcia, S. (ed.) (2017), “Problematic Social Media Use: Results from a Large-Scale Nationally Representative Adolescent Sample”, PLOS ONE, Vol. 12/1, p. e0169839, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169839.

[31] Kabir, E. (ed.) (2021), “Screen time and early adolescent mental health, academic, and social outcomes in 9- and 10- year old children: Utilizing the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development ℠ (ABCD) Study”, PLOS ONE, Vol. 16/9, p. e0256591, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256591.

[97] Kalaitzaki, A. et al. (2024), “The mental health toll of the Russian-Ukraine war across 11 countries: Cross-sectional data on war-related stressors, PTSD and CPTSD symptoms”, Psychiatry Research, Vol. 342, p. 116248, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2024.116248.

[98] Kaman, A. et al. (2025), “Youth Mental Health in Times of Global Crises: Evidence From the German Longitudinal COVID-19 and Psychological Health Study”, Journal of Adolescent Health, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2025.05.010.

[86] Kandola, A. et al. (2022), “Impact on adolescent mental health of replacing screen-use with exercise: A prospective cohort study”, Journal of Affective Disorders, Vol. 301, pp. 240-247, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.12.064.

[110] Karasoy, A. (2024), “The Drivers of Suicides in Turkey: An Econometric Approach”, OMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying, https://doi.org/10.1177/00302228241232731.

[119] Kim, B. et al. (2022), “Family economic hardship and adolescent mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic”, Frontiers in Public Health, Vol. 10, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.904985.

[116] Kim, Y. and C. Hagquist (2017), “Trends in adolescent mental health during economic upturns and downturns: a multilevel analysis of Swedish data 1988-2008”, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, Vol. 72/2, pp. 101-108, https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2017-209784.

[3] Kirkbride, J. et al. (2024), “The social determinants of mental health and disorder: evidence, prevention and recommendations”, World Psychiatry, Vol. 23/1, pp. 58-90, https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.21160.

[115] Klanšček, H. et al. (2014), “Mental health inequalities in Slovenian 15-year-old adolescents explained by personal social position and family socioeconomic status”, International Journal for Equity in Health, Vol. 13/1, p. 26, https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-9276-13-26.

[117] Kolaitis, G. and G. Giannakopoulos (2015), “Greek financial crisis and child mental health”, The Lancet, Vol. 386/9991, p. 335, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(15)61402-7.

[114] Lager, A. and S. Bremberg (2009), “Association between labour market trends and trends in young people’s mental health in ten European countries 1983-2005”, BMC Public Health, Vol. 9/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-9-325.

[85] Lahti, H. et al. (2024), “What Counteracts Problematic Social Media Use in Adolescence? A Cross-National Observational Study”, Journal of Adolescent Health, Vol. 74/1, pp. 98-112, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2023.07.026.

[99] Lass-Hennemann, J. et al. (2023), “Generation climate crisis, COVID-19, and Russia–Ukraine-War: global crises and mental health in adolescents”, European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 33/7, pp. 2203-2216, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-023-02300-x.

[84] Ledel, Å., S. Låftman and J. Landberg (2025), “Problematic social media use and self-rated health among Swedish adolescents: is the association moderated by family support?”, BMC Public Health, Vol. 25/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-22927-6.

[126] Lee, J. et al. (2026), “Cyberbullying Victimization and Mental Health Symptoms Among Children and Adolescents: A Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Studies”, Trauma Violence Abuse, https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380241313051.

[88] Lehtimaki, S. et al. (2021), “Evidence on Digital Mental Health Interventions for Adolescents and Young People: Systematic Overview”, JMIR Mental Health, Vol. 8/4, p. e25847, https://doi.org/10.2196/25847.

[28] Lissak, G. (2018), “Adverse physiological and psychological effects of screen time on children and adolescents: Literature review and case study”, Environmental Research, Vol. 164, pp. 149-157, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.015.

[80] Lopes, L. et al. (2022), “Problematic Social Media Use and Its Relationship with Depression or Anxiety: A Systematic Review”, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, Vol. 25/11, pp. 691-702, https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2021.0300.

[2] Lund, C. et al. (2018), “Social determinants of mental disorders and the Sustainable Development Goals: a systematic review of reviews”, The Lancet Psychiatry, Vol. 5/4, pp. 357-369, https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(18)30060-9.

[18] Mansfield, K. et al. (2025), “From social media to artificial intelligence: improving research on digital harms in youth”, The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, Vol. 9/3, pp. 194-204, https://doi.org/10.1016/s2352-4642(24)00332-8.

[125] Man, X., J. Liu and Z. Xue (2022), “Effects of Bullying Forms on Adolescent Mental Health and Protective Factors: A Global Cross-Regional Research Based on 65 Countries”, International journal of environmental research and public health, Vol. 19/4, https://doi.org/10.3390/IJERPH19042374.

[90] Ma, Q. et al. (2024), “Effectiveness of internet-based self-help interventions for depression in adolescents and young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis”, BMC Psychiatry, Vol. 24/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-024-06046-x.

[103] McGorry, P. et al. (2025), “The youth mental health crisis: analysis and solutions”, Frontiers in Psychiatry, Vol. 15, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1517533.

[1] McGorry, P. et al. (2024), “The Lancet Psychiatry Commission on youth mental health”, The Lancet Psychiatry, Vol. 11/9, pp. 731-774, https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(24)00163-9.

[14] Metzler, H. and D. Garcia (2023), “Social Drivers and Algorithmic Mechanisms on Digital Media”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 19/5, p. 735, https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231185057.

[64] Meyerhoff, J. et al. (2025), “Automated Digital Safety Planning Interventions for Young Adults: Qualitative Study Using Online Co-design Methods”, JMIR Formative Research, Vol. 9, p. e69602, https://doi.org/10.2196/69602.

[109] Miller, P. et al. (2024), “Economic hardship and adolescent behavioral outcomes: Within- and between-family associations”, Development and Psychopathology, Vol. 37/1, pp. 107-124, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579423001451.

[10] Milton, A. et al. (2023), ““I See Me Here”: Mental Health Content, Community, and Algorithmic Curation on TikTok”, Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1-17, https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581489.

[7] Mitchell, J. (2021), “Digital supply-use tables: A step toward making digital transformation more visible in economic statistics”, Going Digital Toolkit Note, No. 8, OECD, http://www.oecd.org/going-digital (accessed on 16 October 2025).

[124] Moore, S. et al. (2017), “Consequences of bullying victimization in childhood and adolescence: A systematic review and meta-analysis”, World Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 7/1, p. 60, https://doi.org/10.5498/wjp.v7.i1.60.

[54] Mougharbel, F. et al. (2023), “Longitudinal associations between different types of screen use and depression and anxiety symptoms in adolescents”, Frontiers in Public Health, Vol. 11, p. 1101594, https://doi.org/10.3389/FPUBH.2023.1101594/TEXT.

[52] Nagata, J. et al. (2024), “Screen time and mental health: a prospective analysis of the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study”, BMC Public Health, Vol. 24/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-20102-x.

[23] Naslund, J. et al. (2017), “Exploring opportunities to support mental health care using social media: A survey of social media users with mental illness”, Early Intervention in Psychiatry, Vol. 13/3, pp. 405-413, https://doi.org/10.1111/eip.12496.

[87] Odgers, C. and M. Jensen (2020), “Annual Research Review: Adolescent mental health in the digital age: facts, fears, and future directions”, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Vol. 61/3, pp. 336-348, https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13190.

[6] OECD (2025), How’s Life for Children in the Digital Age?, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0854b900-en.

[123] OECD (2024), How’s Life? 2024: Well-being and Resilience in Times of Crisis, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/90ba854a-en.

[17] OECD (2024), OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2024 (Volume 1): Embracing the Technology Frontier, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a1689dc5-en.

[132] OECD (2024), PISA 2022 Results (Volume V): Learning Strategies and Attitudes for Life, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c2e44201-en.

[136] OECD (2024), Social and Emotional Skills for Better Lives: Findings from the OECD Survey on Social and Emotional Skills 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/35ca7b7c-en.

[48] OECD (2024), What Does Child Empowerment Mean Today?: Implications for Education and Well-being, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8f80ce38-en.

[94] OECD (2023), How to Make Societies Thrive? Coordinating Approaches to Promote Well-being and Mental Health, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/fc6b9844-en.

[8] OECD (2023), Shaping Digital Education: Enabling Factors for Quality, Equity and Efficiency, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bac4dc9f-en.

[4] OECD (2021), A New Benchmark for Mental Health Systems: Tackling the Social and Economic Costs of Mental Ill-Health, OECD Health Policy Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4ed890f6-en.

[135] OECD (2021), Beyond Academic Learning: First Results from the Survey of Social and Emotional Skills, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/92a11084-en.

[102] OECD (2021), Fitter Minds, Fitter Jobs: From Awareness to Change in Integrated Mental Health, Skills and Work Policies, Mental Health and Work, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a0815d0f-en.

[5] OECD (2021), Measuring What Matters for Child Well-being and Policies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e82fded1-en.

[121] OECD (2018), A Broken Social Elevator? How to Promote Social Mobility, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264301085-en.

[50] Orben, A. and A. Przybylski (2019), “The association between adolescent well-being and digital technology use”, Nature Human Behaviour, Vol. 3/2, pp. 173-182, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0506-1.

[137] Orben, A. et al. (2022), “Windows of developmental sensitivity to social media”, Nature Communications, Vol. 13/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29296-3.

[30] Pagano, M., V. Bacaro and E. Crocetti (2023), ““Using digital media or sleeping … that is the question”. A meta-analysis on digital media use and unhealthy sleep in adolescence”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 146, p. 107813, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107813.

[41] Perrault, A. et al. (2019), “Reducing the use of screen electronic devices in the evening is associated with improved sleep and daytime vigilance in adolescents”, Sleep, Vol. 42/9, https://doi.org/10.1093/sleep/zsz125.

[58] Pieh, C. et al. (2025), “Smartphone screen time reduction improves mental health: a randomized controlled trial”, BMC Medicine, Vol. 23/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-025-03944-z.

[11] Pretorius, C., D. McCashin and D. Coyle (2022), “Mental health professionals as influencers on TikTok and Instagram: What role do they play in mental health literacy and help-seeking?”, Internet Interventions, Vol. 30, p. 100591, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2022.100591.

[49] Przybylski, A. and N. Weinstein (2017), “A Large-Scale Test of the Goldilocks Hypothesis”, Psychological Science, Vol. 28/2, pp. 204-215, https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616678438.

[46] Qiu, J. and I. Morales-Muñoz (2022), “Associations between Sleep and Mental Health in Adolescents: Results from the UK Millennium Cohort Study”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 19/3, p. 1868, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031868.

[104] Reiss, F. (2013), “Socioeconomic inequalities and mental health problems in children and adolescents: A systematic review”, Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 90, pp. 24-31, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SOCSCIMED.2013.04.026.

[128] Robson, D. et al. (2023), “Test anxiety in primary school children: A 20-year systematic review and meta-analysis”, Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 98, pp. 39-60, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2023.02.003.

[62] Rodway, C. et al. (2022), “Online harms? Suicide-related online experience: a UK-wide case series study of young people who die by suicide”, Psychological Medicine, Vol. 53/10, pp. 4434-4445, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291722001258.

[100] Runze, J., F. Marten and L. Brinke (2022), “The effect of exposure to social-media coverage of the Russo-Ukrainian war on stress symptoms in Dutch adolescents”, Erasmus University Rotterdam, https://doi.org/10.31234/OSF.IO/2YC36.

[83] Sala, A., L. Porcaro and E. Gómez (2024), “Social Media Use and adolescents’ mental health and well-being: An umbrella review”, Computers in Human Behavior Reports, Vol. 14, p. 100404, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2024.100404.

[51] Santos, R. et al. (2023), “The associations between screen time and mental health in adolescents: a systematic review”, BMC Psychology, Vol. 11/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01166-7.

[57] Schmidt-Persson, J. et al. (2024), “Screen Media Use and Mental Health of Children and Adolescents”, JAMA Network Open, Vol. 7/7, p. e2419881, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.19881.

[72] Schønning, V. et al. (2020), “Social Media Use and Mental Health and Well-Being Among Adolescents – A Scoping Review”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 11, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01949.

[93] Sciberras, E. and J. Fernando (2021), “Climate change‐related worry among Australian adolescents: an eight‐year longitudinal study”, Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Vol. 27/1, pp. 22-29, https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12521.

[81] Shannon, H. et al. (2022), “Problematic Social Media Use in Adolescents and Young Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis”, JMIR Mental Health, Vol. 9/4, p. e33450, https://doi.org/10.2196/33450.

[47] Short, M. et al. (2020), “The relationship between sleep duration and mood in adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis”, Sleep Medicine Reviews, Vol. 52, p. 101311, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smrv.2020.101311.

[35] Spitschan, M. (ed.) (2022), “Do both timing and duration of screen use affect sleep patterns in adolescents?”, PLOS ONE, Vol. 17/10, p. e0276226, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276226.

[127] Steare, T. et al. (2023), “The association between academic pressure and adolescent mental health problems: A systematic review”, Journal of Affective Disorders, Vol. 339, pp. 302-317, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2023.07.028.

[69] Steinsbekk, S., J. Nesi and L. Wichstrøm (2023), “Social media behaviors and symptoms of anxiety and depression. A four-wave cohort study from age 10–16 years.”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 147, p. 107859, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107859.

[13] Sumner, S. et al. (2021), “Association of Online Risk Factors With Subsequent Youth Suicide-Related Behaviors in the US”, JAMA Network Open, Vol. 4/9, p. e2125860, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.25860.

[70] Thorisdottir, I. et al. (2019), “Active and Passive Social Media Use and Symptoms of Anxiety and Depressed Mood Among Icelandic Adolescents”, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, Vol. 22/8, pp. 535-542, https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2019.0079.

[66] Thorisdottir, I. et al. (2020), “Longitudinal association between social media use and psychological distress among adolescents”, Preventive Medicine, Vol. 141, p. 106270, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106270.

[63] Thorn, P. et al. (2023), “Motivations and perceived harms and benefits of online communication about self-harm: An interview study with young people”, DIGITAL HEALTH, Vol. 9, https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076231176689.

[9] Turuba, R. et al. (2024), “Exploring How Youth Use TikTok for Mental Health Information in British Columbia: Semistructured Interview Study With Youth”, JMIR Infodemiology, Vol. 4, p. e53233, https://doi.org/10.2196/53233.

[65] Twenge, J. and E. Farley (2020), “Not all screen time is created equal: associations with mental health vary by activity and gender”, Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, Vol. 56/2, pp. 207-217, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-020-01906-9.

[59] UNICEF (2025), Childhood in a Digital World, https://www.unicef.org/innocenti/reports/childhood-digital-world (accessed on 13 October 2025).

[111] van Gool, K. and M. Pearson (2014), “Health, Austerity and Economic Crisis: Assessing the Short-term Impact in OECD countries”, OECD Health Working Papers, No. 76, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jxx71lt1zg6-en.

[101] Vargas Lopes, F. and A. Llena-Nozal (2025), “Understanding and addressing inequalities in mental health”, OECD Health Working Papers, No. 180, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/56adb10f-en.

[20] Vuorre, M. and A. Przybylski (2024), “A multiverse analysis of the associations between internet use and well-being.”, Technology, Mind, and Behavior, Vol. 5/2, https://doi.org/10.1037/tmb0000127.

[16] WHO Europe (2025), “Addressing the digital determinants of youth mental health and well-being: policy brief”, World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/381496.

[45] Woodfield, M., N. Butler and M. Tsappis (2024), “Impact of sleep and mental health in adolescence: an overview”, Current Opinion in Pediatrics, Vol. 36/4, pp. 375-381, https://doi.org/10.1097/mop.0000000000001358.

[37] Woods, H. and H. Scott (2016), “#Sleepyteens: Social media use in adolescence is associated with poor sleep quality, anxiety, depression and low self‐esteem”, Journal of Adolescence, Vol. 51/1, pp. 41-49, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.05.008.

[73] Woodward, M. et al. (2025), “Time Spent on Social Media and Associations with Mental Health in Young Adults: Examining TikTok, Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Youtube, Snapchat, and Reddit”, Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science, Vol. 10/3, pp. 661-671, https://doi.org/10.1007/s41347-024-00474-y.

[56] Xiao, Y. et al. (2025), “Addictive Screen Use Trajectories and Suicidal Behaviors, Suicidal Ideation, and Mental Health in US Youths”, JAMA, https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2025.7829.

[42] Xu, F. et al. (2019), “Relationship between Physical Activity, Screen Time, and Sleep Quantity and Quality in US Adolescents Aged 16–19”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 16/9, p. 1524, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16091524.

[34] Yu, D. et al. (2024), “The Impact of Social Media Use on Sleep and Mental Health in Youth: a Scoping Review”, Current Psychiatry Reports, Vol. 26/3, pp. 104-119, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-024-01481-9.

[44] Zhang, J. et al. (2017), “Sleep Patterns and Mental Health Correlates in US Adolescents”, The Journal of Pediatrics, Vol. 182, pp. 137-143, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.11.007.

Note

← 1.  Based on a keyword search of “youth AND [digital media type] AND mental health” in October 2025, on https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/. Similar results were found when “youth” was substituted for “adolescents” and “children”, and when the same search was undertaken in ScienceDirect.