Back

Objectively measured social media use and psychosocial wellbeing among adolescent girls: a prospective study

Kosola, S.; Moro, S.; Holopainen, E.

2026-05-26 pediatrics
10.64898/2026.05.25.26354016 medRxiv
Show abstract

Objective: Cross-sectional studies indicate associations between self-reported social media use and adolescent wellbeing outcomes. We aimed to evaluate longitudinal associations of objectively measured smartphone and social media use with psychosocial wellbeing. Design: Observational study with one year of follow-up Setting: High schools in Finland from 2022 to 2023 Population: 259 adolescent girls (mean age 16.3 years at baseline) Main outcome measures: screenshots depicting smartphone and social media use, Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale (BSMAS), Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 questionnaire, Body Appreciation Scale 2 (BAS-2) and visual analogue scales (VAS) of mood, tiredness, and loneliness Results: Across one year of follow-up, anxiety, body appreciation, and mood improved, but possible social media addiction increased from 15% to 17%. Social media addiction at baseline was associated with increased anxiety (r=0.29, p<0.001), lower body appreciation (r=-0.15, p=0.022), and more loneliness (r=0.20, p=0.001) at follow-up. Anxiety at baseline was associated with social media addiction at follow-up (r=0.19, p=0.005). The highest quartile of TikTok users reported more social media addiction (BSMAS 19 [IQR 16-21] vs. 17 [IQR 14-20]; p=0.009) and lower body appreciation (BAS-2 32 [IQR 28-38] vs. 35 [IQR 29-40]; p=0.003) than did others. The highest quartile of Snapchat users reported more social media addiction (BSMAS 19 [IQR 15-21] vs. 17 [IQR 14-20]; p=0.007) and tiredness (VAS 21 [IQR 13-32] vs. 26 [IQR 15-35]; p=0.049) than did others. Conclusions: Consistent with cross-sectional studies, social media addiction was associated with poorer psychosocial outcomes across follow-up. Policies to protect adolescents from social media addiction are urgently needed.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.