Talk:Digital media use and mental health/Archive 4

Consider FA nomination
Thanks to everyone's help with this article. There has been an extensive GA review, a DYK nom pending, a peer review, (error in naming the first peer review), an extensive copyedit, a student project, and many other comments. I have asked one busy editor for mentoring for consideration of FA nom in the next month or so, but if anyone else would like to, I'm all ears! Any comments and assistance much appreciated. -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   12:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Also there is the version submitted to Wikijournal of Humanities, awaiting editorial consideration :) -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   13:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Input from Cas Liber (and anyone else who wants to comment on points I raise)
Might be best to structure this feedback. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * In the lead, The differentiation between beneficial and pathological use of digital media has not been completely established.  - strikes me as a wildly optimistic statement to the point of inaccuracy. Also, if the consensus was to use this sentence in some form, I'd prefer "demarcation" or "delineation" or "distinction" than "differentiation"....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your comments. I agree with delineation and comprehensively established as you discussed in the peer review, and agree the current wording is problematic. In that wording I am genuinely trying to make a neutral statement - many people read internet / social media addiction as established clinical entities when of course this is under debate. How would you word it? -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]  
 * Hmmm, were I being candid, I'd say, "No-one has any idea where the line is between helpful and harmful time-wise (probably because there isn't one)". Anything else is wildly optimistic to the point of inaccuracy....but seriously, I guess leave as "The delineation between beneficial and pathological use of digital media has not been established." Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool, removed "comprehensively" -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   11:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I have mixed feelings about the "double-edged sword" paper and am reading the fulltext of it - it is a questionnaire that was filled out anonymously by 84 people who self-identify as being diagnosed with bipolar disorder. As it stands, what is on the page is really vague and nonexplanatory. We have our own "double-edged sword" in that leaving it out (as per MEDMOS compromises comprehensiveness but leaving it in is undue weight. However, the article is mostly stating pretty obvious stuff. - people use tech more when they're manic, less when they're depressed, they shop more and might look at porn when manic, using devices at night might disrupt sleep patterns that increases risk of manic relapse, when depressed, support networks or looking at their own posts when not depressed are soothing etc. It is annoying seeing a paper quote a factoid "10 year delay between symptoms and diagnosis" from a 2001 paper that itself made the observation from a group established in 1994 (hmm, not like mental health awareness has increased in this time...?) but I digress....I think we need to remove it or actually state what the study is, as as it reads now its sort of a woozle effect Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand the concern about WP:DUE here. I'm more leading to the expert opinion for completeness including bipolar disorder, and I dont state what the study is because it is a poor study with almost no external validity. Do you think I should simply state the expert opinion and remove the study, rather than trying to analyse the study? -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   05:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Errr...what expert opinion? None of the authors are medical practitioners or psychologists, let alone psychiatrists. Also, just describing it as "..a singular study, without generalisable results." is vague to the point of meaninglessness. How do we know they aren't generalisable? Why not just say what they did? Got a bunch of people who said they had bipolar disorder in a questionnaire, the responders affirming they used digital technology more when manic (plus shopping/gambling/porn), and less when depressed....? Not describing what it is gives it a greater sense of legitimacy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I see your point, reworded :) -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   11:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The item of the last para of Proposed diagnostic categories would be better placed at the end of para 2 of Mental health section, where it would slot in well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Done --05:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   11:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Cyberbullying is a huge part of digital media use. I know there is a daughter article on this, but maybe a sentence or two more here (on, say, incidence etc.) would not go astray. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Added some incidence here with a new book ref :) -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   11:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Input from Seppi333
Following up on this request, these are the changes I made to the article; most were just MOS:DATE, MOS:NDASH, MOS:NBSP, MOS:IMAGELOCATION, and MOS:ACRONYM fixes, but I reworded a few sentences for better flow and had to modify template:infobox tool to allow alt text for images. I also collapsed the bulleted groups of references in the source; feel free to revert those changes if you'd prefer the old source formatting. Using  instead of the   bullet helps reduce the amount of space that citations take up in the source though.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 08:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   12:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if this is worth covering or not but I just remembered seeing this Neuroscience news article on my facebook feed within the past month. I believe it's referring to this article: https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jcmc/zmz010/5521084. If you think it's worth citing and adding content from, just keep in mind that it's a recently published primary source, so it should be replaced with a review article which covers it when one is available.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 07:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Whilst its an interesting article, I try to stick to review sources, or at least secondary sources, as much as possible for medical claims. :) -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   03:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Categorization
Category:Psychiatric_diagnosis:_marginal_or_unestablished_diagnostic_categories any thoughts? -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   11:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems fine.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 07:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Internet sex addiction inclusion
These diffs brought some content across from Internet sex addiction, under proposed diagnostic categories. What do we think about inclusion? Would appreciate addiction project editors / psychiatric experts to help me with the terminology here. Please also note the page move requests at problematic social media use and problematic Internet use. Thanks again, this is really fun coming to consensus! -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   15:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It does fall within the scope of a disorder involving digital media, so it seems fine to include IMO. Sex-related disorders are more your area of expertise, so what do you think?  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 17:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Including mention of it in this article seems fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

FA nom
I nominated today, as I think I have addressed all previous comments to the best I can and I think its nearly there after another literature search and copyedit. I think with the FA review this will hopefully improve the Wikijournal of Humanities submission as well. Letting the most involved contributors know, with sincere thanks for everyones help. I wonder how it will go, has been a remarkable experience. ,, , , , , --  [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   06:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I scanned the article just now. I will try to read it in more detail later. One thing I noticed: The article does not describe the conclusions of an important reference accurately. The reference is: Screen-based activities and children and young people’s mental health and psychosocial wellbeing: a systematic map of reviews (it's the first reference, and it is cited 3 times). That systematic map of reviews concludes:


 * "This systematic map of reviews highlights some key gaps in the field. First, the tendency in primary studies to draw on cross-sectional data with a lack of prospective research designs, prevents reviews from providing a clear indication of nature of any causal relationship between screen-based activities and mental health outcomes. Second, evidence on the factors potentially mediating and/or moderating the relationship between screen-based activities and mental health outcomes was sparse, limiting our understanding of what influences CYP behaviour in this area. Third, few reviews analysed subsets of populations (e.g. specific age groups, gender, mental health status) which could help contextualise the relationship between screen-based activities and mental health and psychosocial outcomes. Lastly, although some reviews included qualitative studies, there is a lack of synthesis of critically appraised evidence about CYP’s experiences of different types of screen-based activities. Future reviews generating evidence of this kind are needed to improve our understanding of the consequences of, and causal mechanisms that explain how and why, the use of screen-based activities may impact mental health and psychosocial outcomes, over time. (p. ix)"
 * Also see:
 * "This systematic map provides a descriptive overview of review-level research activity, not a metasynthesis of findings. However, unlike most maps, most included reviews were critically assessed for their methodological quality, enabling us to make judgments about the quality of the evidence base. Conducting a systematic map of reviews has provided a robust method for becoming familiar with a very broad review-level evidence base in a short time frame. However, when utilising meta-review methodology (i.e. exploring evidence at the review level rather than primary research itself) there is always a distance between the reviewers and the original studies. For example, although we have been able to provide frequencies of how many reviews report outcomes, we have not collected information about the size of the primary evidence base for each outcome. In addition, we have judged the quality of the reviews, but we do not know the quality of the primary studies within the reviews, which would require further in-depth review synthesis. (p. 39)"


 * Some of the statements in the Wikipedia article, e.g., "A 2019 systematic map of reviews, rated most as medium or high quality, and showed mental health associations of problematic Internet use, with depression and anxiety most often found, as well as hostility, aggression and ADHD", imply conclusions not reached in the cited reference.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 20:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   04:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * what do you think? A 2019 systematic map of reviews found mental health associations of problematic Internet use, with depression and anxiety most often found, as well as hostility, aggression and ADHD. No causal relationships were found, with the reviewers again calling for prospective study designs. It noted that subgroup analysis such as on pre-existing conditions was lacking in the overall evidence. Included reviews were rated medium to high quality, but primary studies were not analysed in terms of quality. I also have a massive caveat at the start of the section in relation to causality has never been found. -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   18:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I really appreciate your openness to feedback E.3. Not only openness, but soliciting feedback! How refreshing. :O) Here's my suggested re-write: "Reviews of the literature suggest associations (but not causation) between some types of potentially problematic Internet use and psychiatric or behavioral problems such as depression, anxiety, hostility, aggression and ADHD. It is hard to know what those associations mean given that the studies could not determine if causal relationships exist. Reviewers emphasized the importance of prospective study designs going forward."  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ I really needed the feedback, such a difficult topic to write! Thanks. I have a similar version in now. -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   16:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

New paragraph in Mental Health section
I added a paragraph to the Mental health section about the Twenge, Joiner, and Rogers (2018) study and the Ophir, et al. (2019) critique for four reasons. I believe these reasons outweigh our (Wikipedia's) preference for review articles over primary sources.

First, the Twenge, Joiner, and Rogers (2018) article, published online in November 2017, has already been cited 177 times in the academic literature (per Google Scholar). (I recognize that Google Scholar includes some "gray literature".)

Second, several major news organizations have also cited the Twenge, et al. (2018) study, e.g., NBC News, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, and TIME, to name a few.

Third, the frequent citing of the Twenge, et al. (2018) study in academia and the news media, including some conclusory statements, demonstrate the appeal of "social phenomenon causes big problems" stories. I don't mean to imply that all these citations and news stories represent sloppy scholarship or sensationalist media. Some of them do, but my main point is that "positive" findings attract more attention than "negative" results. (This tendency also fuels the replication problem in psychology and other disciplines.)

Fourth, the Twenge, et al. (2018) study and the Ophir, et al. (2019) critique highlight the debate within the scientific community, mentioned in the introduction of the article (I'm referring to the Introduction (lede, lead section) of this Wikipedia article, Digital media use and mental health). - Mark D Worthen PsyD  (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, copyedited for ease of reading -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   07:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * And excellent copy edits they are. :0)  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 05:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

New paper
This is a big new cross-sectional survey, so may be allowed under WP:MEDRS: Viner et al., 2019. Got lots of media coverage, e.g. BBC. Bondegezou (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like a sound and important study. It would also be good to continue balancing research from the U.S. with other countries. I support adding a concise summary to the Mental Health section.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)  (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree its worthy of inclusion, but is it too soon? The primary studies with medical claims are secondary sources as far as possible, if not review sources as the article stands. are you able to explain the rationale for inclusion of the singular study under MEDRS, AFAIK this seems to be a bit like "post-hoc" analysis of a singular survey?  Also would you use this BMJ letter as the secondary source? Thanks --  [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   14:43, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * For now I have it under the sub article problematic social media use -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   14:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Should Industry and government section be a sub article?
Given its current length to give a more global perspective,, are we happy with the length and summary style here? I could spin it out into a sub article with a more succinct summary here. Masem - there are heaps of related articles, would such an article even be necessary? Thanks! -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   12:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Online gambling illustration
The illustration for online gambling is silly and not informative or encyclopedic. I think it would be best to remove or replace it. Kaldari (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The picture is silly but a 5th picture of some teen on a smartphone would be worse. I liked it, it breaks the seriousness of a long article and makes reading the 2nd half of it more inviting. 93.136.160.149 (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Daniel Case (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes who would have thought that was my intention.   [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   06:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The best picture would be a (fair use?) screenshot of some online gambling website. We could probably make our own simplified version of some online gambling ad 'click the online roulette! win big!' or such. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We did have an image of a online gambling website before, it was thought to be non free but eventually deleted due to not being in commons scope. If we use it here than it would be in commons scope. I requested undeletion so we can use it here if thats what consensus ends up being. --  [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   03:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Social media and psychology into Digital media use and mental health
Digital media use and mental health is focused on the impacts of social media on wellbeing, whereas Social media and psychology emphasizes motivations. However, the difference is illusory; these motivations are to meet needs, which have mental health impacts when met or not, through whatever means. Daask (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC) Daask (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC) UTC)
 * Oppose These are distinct articles covering different topics. Psychology is much broader than mental health. Bondegezou (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, and also because it is functionally impossible to integrate the low-quality material in the other article into this article, which gained Featured Article status last year. In any event that merge banner should not be left here indefinitely, so I hope someone closes this discussion eventually. Outriggr (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Two different topicsNovalia (talk)
 * Oppose Per WP:SNOW and I wrote the bulk of this article to bring to FA. Different topics —49.195.72.73 (talk) 18:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Telluride (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose For all the good reasons other editors have posted.  - Mark D Worthen PsyD   (talk)   (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.)  18:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 May 2019 and 12 July 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kboydx23.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 9 March 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gkyoungren.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2021 and 21 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hanafarooqui312. Peer reviewers: Esraa241.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technical and Scientific Communication
— Assignment last updated by Cailinharris (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Suggested Further Readings
I plan to add four articles to the further reading section that are relevant to this topic and could be useful to someone reading.--Lradcliffe03 (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Correspondance between content and lede
I get the impression that the lede does not accurately summarise the contents, notably the lede sentence "Digital media and screen time have changed how children think, interact and develop in positive and negative ways" does not accurately represent the findings presented in the long and detailed Problematic use section and the short Mental Health Benefits section. Munci (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I agree. Granted, the 'Problematic' section is much longer than the 'Benefits' section.  But the latter section is rightly unequivocal on benefits associated with digital. Whereas the Problematic section is so long as much of it is relaying counterargument and rebuttal.  I think I get where you're coming from. It was shocking to read CDC's February report showing a clear majority of US teenage girls experience persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness, and that 30% have seriously considered suicide. These figures have risen massively since 2012, when smartphone use first became prevalent. As Jean Twenge explains, the trends kept getting worse even in 2017 & 2018 when there was less climate anxiety, the US economy was doing well, and there was no pandemic or major war to worry about. It's similar here in UK, as a bloke in my 50s I have several in my circle of friends with teenage girls who have been struggling with suicidal thoughts. But regardless, we have to be careful not to go beyond what is said in the quality WP:RS, and at the moment, the scientific literature, especially at review level, is very equivocal about linking digital use with negative mental health outcomes. When and if this changes, we can update the lede to reflect it. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Updating and adding a social media section
Hi all. Social media and mental health redirects here, but this article currently has no Social Media section. This might have made sense back in early 2019 when a higher proportion of studies looked at the MH implications of broad sense digital, rather than focussing on social media. But since 2019 there has been a "staggering increase" in the studies looking specifically at SM & MH. According to a 2022 umbrella study, there were 25 review level articles (meta-analyses, narrative & systematic reviews) focusing on social media & MH for adolescents alone, published between 2019 and mid-2021. So a dedicated Social Media section seems warranted. I'll go ahead & create one. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've finished my update run for now. I may return once more review level articles are published. At that point I might be a little more ruthless in trimming older info for compliance with WP:size. I know it's distressing to delete other editors work. But the scientific understanding of this topic is evolving rapidly, and should be reflected in the article. It's near impossible to make the artifcle coherent and easy to read if we keep the dozens of long paragraphs relaying findings of outdated individual studies. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)