Talk:Digital media use and mental health

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconA version of this article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 1 August 2019. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.

Consider FA nomination[edit]

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)

Input from Cas Liber (and anyone else who wants to comment on points I raise)[edit]

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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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[edit]

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 <br />{{bull}} instead of the * bullet helps reduce the amount of space that citations take up in the source though. Seppi333 (Insert ) 08:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much! --[E.3][chat2][me] 12:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@E.3: 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: 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. Seppi333 (Insert ) 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)


Category:Psychiatric_diagnosis:_marginal_or_unestablished_diagnostic_categories any thoughts? --[E.3][chat2][me] 11:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Seems fine. Seppi333 (Insert ) 07:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Internet sex addiction inclusion[edit]

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. @Flyer22 Reborn: Sex-related disorders are more your area of expertise, so what do you think? Seppi333 (Insert ) 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[edit]

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. @Casliber:, @Doc James:, @Farang Rak Tham:, @Seppi333:, @Twofingered Typist:, @Bondegezou:, @FeydHuxtable: --[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)
Doing... --[E.3][chat2][me] 04:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Fixed 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)
 Done 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[edit]

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[edit]

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. @Bondegezou: 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?[edit]

Given its current length to give a more global perspective, @Masem:, @Gog the Mild: 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)