Advertisement

Harnessing the Potential of Social Media to Develop the Next Generation of Digital Health Treatments in Youth Mental Health

  • Lee ValentineEmail author
  • Carla McEnery
  • Simon D’Alfonso
  • Jess Phillips
  • Eleanor Bailey
  • Mario Alvarez-Jimenez
Technology and its Impact on Mental Health Care (J Torous and T Becker, Section Editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Technology and its Impact on Mental Health Care

Abstract

Purpose of review

This narrative review presents a summary of current research regarding the impact of social networking sites (SNS) on the health and well-being of young people. The review consolidates research on the following topics: risks and benefits associated with SNS use by young people with anxiety and depression, and psychosis respectively; an outline of eOrygen’s Moderated Online Social Therapy (MOST) platform; and a discussion of the ways in which research in the digital health field inform the design and delivery of the MOST intervention.

Recent findings

Recent findings in the digital health field suggest that it is necessary to take a nuanced approach when examining the impact of SNS on the health and well-being of young people. The effects of social media can be influenced by a range of factors, which may include the type of interaction, the ethos underpinning the SNS, and the personal attributes of the user.

Summary

The digital health field is working to harness the popularity of SNS among young people and incorporate it into the design of custom therapeutic digital platforms. One such example is eOrygen’s Moderated Online Social Therapy (MOST). MOST is underpinned by a clear and innovative positive psychology framework and is designed to bring about long-term social and functional recovery in youth mental health. MOST aims to leverage young people’s interest in social media, while explicitly addressing and working to minimise the negative pitfalls of commercial SNS, thus maximising the potential for therapeutic benefit, while working to minimise negative impacts to the user. The overarching purpose of MOST is to revolutionise young people’s access to, and engagement with, therapeutic digital interventions and to improve mental health outcomes for young people overall.

Keywords

Social media Young people Youth mental health Psychosis Anxiety Social networking sites 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Lee Valentine, Carla McEnery, Simon D’Alfonso, Jess Phillips, Eleanor Bailey, and Mario Alvarez-Jimenez declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights and informed consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    •• Erfani SS, Abedin B. Impacts of the use of social network sites on users' psychological well-being: a systematic review. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2018;69(7):900–12.A 2018 systematic literature review of studies published between 2003 and 2016 on the relationship between SNS use and psychological well being.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bailey E, Rice S, Robinson J, Nedeljkovic M, Alvarez-Jimenez M. Theoretical and empirical foundations of a novel online social networking intervention for youth suicide prevention: A conceptual review. Journal of affective disorders. 2018 Oct 1;238:499–505.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ellison, N., & boyd, D. (2013). Sociality through social network sites. In W. Dutton (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of internet studies (pp. 157). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alhabash S, Ma M. A tale of four platforms: motivations and uses of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat among college students? Soc Media Soc. 2017;3(1):2056305117691544.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Miniwatts Marketing Group. Internet usage statistics: the internet big picture 2019 [cited 5/05/2019]. Available from: https://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm
  6. 6.
    Santesteban-Echarri O, Álvarez-Jiménez M, Gleeson J, Rice SM. Social media interventions for adolescents and young people with depression and psychosis. In: InTechnology and adolescent mental health. Cham: Springer; 2018. p. 187–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sensis. Yellow Social Media Report 2018. Part one - consumers 2018 [cited 2019 5/05/2019]. Available from: https://www.yellow.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Yellow-Social-Media-Report-2018-Consumer.pdf.
  8. 8.
    • Baker DA, Algorta GP. The relationship between online social networking and depression: a systematic review of quantitative studies. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2016;19(11):638–48..A 2016 systematic review of 30 empirical studies examining the relationship between SNS use and symptoms of depression.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fogg BJ. Persuasive computers: perspectives and research directions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems; 1998 (pp. 225-232). ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Atler A. IRRESISTIBLE: the rise of addictive technology and the business of keeping us hooked. Perspect Sci Christian Faith. 2017;69(4):253–6.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    •• Orben A, Dienlin T, Przybylski AK. Social media’s enduring effect on adolescent life satisfaction. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2019;116(21):10226–8. Findings demonstrated that overall social media effects on young people are nuanced, bidirectional, and difficult to pinpoint even with a very large sample.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    •• Yang CC. Instagram use, loneliness, and social comparison orientation: interact and browse on social media, but don't compare. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2016;19(12):703–8. Influential paper (findings demonstrated the possibility for healthy SNS use and the importance of including personality traits and specific SNS use patterns to disentangle the role of SNS use in psychological well-being).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kuss DJ, Griffiths MD. Online social networking and addiction—a review of the psychological literature. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2011;8(9):3528–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kross E, Verduyn P, Demiralp E, Park J, Lee DS, Lin N, et al. Facebook use predicts declines in subjective well-being in young adults. PLoS One. 2013;8(8):e69841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marino C, Vieno A, Pastore M, Albery IP, Frings D, Spada MM. Modeling the contribution of personality, social identity and social norms to problematic Facebook use in adolescents. Addict Behav. 2016;63:51–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Singleton A, Abeles P, Smith IC. Online social networking and psychological experiences: the perceptions of young people with mental health difficulties. Comput Hum Behav. 2016;61:394–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tamplin NC, McLean SA, Paxton SJ. Social media literacy protects against the negative impact of exposure to appearance ideal social media images in young adult women but not men. Body Image. 2018;26:29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Collin, P., Richardson, I., & Third, A. (2011). The benefits of social networking services. Cooperative Research Centre for Young People, Technology and Wellbeing. Retrieved from https://www.fya.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/The-Benefits-of-Social-NetworkingServices.pdf
  19. 19.
    Easton K, Diggle J, Ruethi-Davis M, Holmes M, Byron-Parker D, Nuttall J, et al. Qualitative exploration of the potential for adverse events when using an online peer support network for mental health: cross-sectional survey. JMIR Mental Health. 2017;4(4):e49.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grieve R, Indian M, Witteveen K, Tolan GA, Marrington J. Face-to-face or Facebook: can social connectedness be derived online? Comput Hum Behav. 2013;29(3):604–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Burns JM, Birrell E, Bismark M, Pirkis J, Davenport TA, Hickie IB, et al. The role of technology in Australian youth mental health reform. Aust Health Rev. 2016;40(5):584–90.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Birnbaum ML, Rizvi AF, Correll CU, Kane JM, Confino J. Role of social media and the internet in pathways to care for adolescents and young adults with psychotic disorders and non-psychotic mood disorders. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2017;11(4):290–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    O'Keeffe GS, Clarke-Pearson K. The impact of social media on children, adolescents, and families. Pediatrics. 2011;127(4):800–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lin LY, Sidani JE, Shensa A, Radovic A, Miller E, Colditz JB, et al. Association between social media use and depression among US young adults. Depress Anxiety. 2016;33(4):323–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vannucci A, Flannery KM, Ohannessian CM. Social media use and anxiety in emerging adults. J Affect Disord. 2017;207:163–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    John A, Glendenning AC, Marchant A, Montgomery P, Stewart A, Wood S, et al. Self-harm, suicidal behaviours, and cyberbullying in children and young people: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(4):e129.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Royal Society for Public Health, 2017 #StatusOfMind [cited 2019 10/5/2019]. Available from: https://www.rsph.org.uk/uploads/assets/uploaded/62be270a-a55f-4719-ad668c2ec7a74c2a.pdf
  28. 28.
    Spraggins A. Problematic use of online social networking sites for college students: prevalence, predictors, and association with well-being. Gainesville: University of Florida; 2009.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Caplan SE. Relations among loneliness, social anxiety, and problematic internet use. CyberPsychol Behav. 2006;10(2):234–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pierce T. Social anxiety and technology: face-to-face communication versus technological communication among teens. Comput Hum Behav. 2009;25(6):1367–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Weidman AC, Fernandez KC, Levinson CA, Augustine AA, Larsen RJ, Rodebaugh TL. Compensatory internet use among individuals higher in social anxiety and its implications for well-being. Personal Individ Differ. 2012;53(3):191–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    •• Seabrook EM, Kern ML, Rickard NS. Social networking sites, depression, and anxiety: a systematic review. JMIR Mental Health. 2016;3(4):e50. Findings demonstrated that type of social media interaction is important when considering negative and positive impacts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Błachnio A, Przepiorka A, Boruch W, Bałakier E. Self-presentation styles, privacy, and loneliness as predictors of Facebook use in young people. Personal Individ Differ. 2016;94:26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    •• Berry N, Emsley R, Lobban F, Bucci S. Social media and its relationship with mood, self-esteem and paranoia in psychosis. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2018;138(6):558–70. Identified specific online behaviours that are strongly associated with negative and positive impacts on well-being.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Highton-Williamson E, Priebe S, Giacco D. Online social networking in people with psychosis: a systematic review. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2015;61(1):92–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    • Lal S, Nguyen V, Theriault J. Seeking mental health information and support online: Experiences and perspectives of young people receiving treatment for first-episode psychosis. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2018;12(3):324–30 A qualitative study exploring young people’s experience of seeking out first-episode psychosis information online. One of very few qualitative studies of this nature.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Alvarez-Jimenez M, Bendall S, Lederman R, Wadley G, Chinnery G, Vargas S, et al. On the HORYZON: moderated online social therapy for long-term recovery in first episode psychosis. Schizophr Res. 2013;143(1):143–9.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fortuna KL, Brooks JM, Umucu E, Walker R, Chow PI. Peer support: A human factor to enhance engagement in digital health behavior change interventions. Journal of Technology in Behavioral Science. 2019:1–0.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schrank B, Sibitz I, Unger A, Amering M. How patients with schizophrenia use the internet: qualitative study. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12(5):e70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gleeson J, Lederman R, Koval P, Wadley G, Bendall S, Cotton S, et al. Moderated online social therapy: a model for reducing stress in carers of young people diagnosed with mental health disorders. Front Psychol. 2017;8:485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Rice S, Robinson J, Bendall S, Hetrick S, Cox G, Bailey E, et al. Online and social media suicide prevention interventions for young people: a focus on implementation and moderation. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2016;25(2):80.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Biagianti B, Quraishi SH, Schlosser DA. Potential benefits of incorporating peer-to-peer interactions into digital interventions for psychotic disorders: a systematic review. Psychiatr Serv. 2017;69(4):377–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Alvarez-Jimenez M, Gleeson JF, Bendall S, Penn DL, Yung AR, Ryan RM, et al. Enhancing social functioning in young people at ultra high risk (UHR) for psychosis: a pilot study of a novel strengths and mindfulness-based online social therapy. Schizophr Res. 2018;202:369–77.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    •• Alvarez-Jimenez M, Bendall S, Koval P, Rice S, Cagliarini D, Valentine L, et al. 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. 2019;9(2):e024104. Horyzons study protocol paper outlining the Moderated Online Social Therapy (MOST) platform.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rice S, Gleeson J, Davey C, Hetrick S, Parker A, Lederman R, et al. Moderated online social therapy for depression relapse prevention in young people: pilot study of a ‘next generation’ online intervention. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2018;12(4):613–25.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Watkins DC, Allen JO, Goodwill JR, Noel B. Strengths and weaknesses of the young black men, masculinities, and mental health (YBMen) Facebook project. Am J Orthop. 2017;87(4):392–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ridout B, Campbell A. The use of social networking sites in mental health interventions for young people: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(12):e12244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    McEnery C, Lim MH, Knowles A, Rice S, Gleeson J, Howell S, Russon P, Miles C, D'Alfonso S, Alvarez-Jimenez M. Development of a Moderated Online Intervention to Treat Social Anxiety in First-Episode Psychosis. Frontiers in Psychiatry. 2019;10:581.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Parker L, Halter V, Karliychuk T, Grundy Q. How private is your mental health app data? An empirical study of mental health app privacy policies and practices. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2019;64:198–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Anagnostopoulos A, Petroni F, Sorella M. Targeted interest-driven advertising in cities using twitter. Data Min Knowl Disc. 2018;32(3):737–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lee Valentine
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Carla McEnery
    • 1
    • 3
  • Simon D’Alfonso
    • 1
    • 4
  • Jess Phillips
    • 1
  • Eleanor Bailey
    • 1
    • 4
  • Mario Alvarez-Jimenez
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.eOrygenThe National Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental HealthParkvilleAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Youth Mental HealthThe University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.Centre for Mental Health, Department of Psychological SciencesSwinburneHawthorneAustralia
  4. 4.The School of Computing and Information SystemsThe University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations