Digital Detox and Well-Being

Abstract

In a May 2023 advisory, the US Surgeon General raised concerns about the effects of social media use on well-being. One implied strategy to reduce its impact is abstaining from digital media use. This state-of-the-art review summarizes the most recent studies on reducing or abstaining from digital media use, including social media (ie, “digital detox”) and its effect on well-being to inform parents, educators, schools, policymakers, and the public when taking action. In June 2023, we conducted a literature search in Google Scholar, PubMed, and ScienceDirect. We included reviews and original research articles (1) focusing on interventions to reduce screen time/social media time and (2) its impact on/association with well-being. We summarized the key points of the 2 published reviews and 6 articles (published between 2013 and 2023), including 139 articles in total. Our main findings are:

1. there is no clear definition of digital detox and no consistency in the assessment of interventions’ effectiveness;

2. reducing social media/smartphone time rather than promoting total abstinence showed more beneficial effects on well-being;

3. the effect of the interventions and their duration varies depending on the type of outcome; and

4. the effects are influenced by gender, age, and contextual factors.

Available evidence on interventions aiming at reducing social media use on well-being is limited, leaving no clear implications for policymaking at this point. More empirical, high-quality research is needed to understand the circumstances under which digital detox interventions are helpful and for whom.

The penetration of smartphone users worldwide is broad, with almost 6.92 billion users in 2023, representing 86.11% of the global population.¹ In 2022, in the United States, 99% of young adults aged 18 to 29 reported owning a smartphone or using social media,² 95% of teens had access to smartphones,² and 97% of teens reported daily Internet use.² The extensive time spent on digital media has increased alarm among many, including policymakers, parents, and health care providers.

There is a widely shared perception that using digital technologies, including social media, is a cause for public health concerns, especially for young people’s (children and adolescents) mental well-being. The US Surgeon General’s advisory³ released in May 2023 underlined that, in a moment in which there is a youth mental crisis, “there are ample indicators that social media can also have a profound risk of harm to the mental health and well-being of children and adolescents,” for which “a safety-first approach should be applied” to increase benefits and reduce harms. At the same time, the American Academy of Pediatrics used federal government funds to create a new center focused on mental health and social media in children and youth.⁴ Several people are suggesting taking policy and practical steps to mitigate the perceived adverse effects of digital and social media use, including interventions to reduce screen time or eliminate the use of social media apps, collectively termed “digital detox.”

Yet, empirical evidence on the link between screen/social media time and well-being is mixed. Many studies have focused on the associations of smartphone and social media use on well-being (summarized in reviews of reviews^5–11), showing both positive and negative, though small, effects of social media use on well-being, depending on the type of activity (eg, finding social support versus social comparison with others¹²). However, some large-scale studies reported that augmented screen time is related to poor health outcomes, including higher levels of depression, anxiety, and loneliness,^12–20 especially in adolescent populations. Reported explanatory mechanisms include, among others, displacing time for in-person interactions¹⁷ or other activities beneficial for well-being (like physical activity and sleep^21–23). Hence, a deeper understanding and evaluation of interventions aiming at reducing screentime or promoting digital detox is necessary to fully comprehend its relationship with population health and well-being. Though some reviews^24–29 focused on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce screen time, they did not focus on how that reduction can be related to well-being outcomes. Hence, the effect of digital detox on well-being still needs further evaluation and a more comprehensive overview that considers the most up-to-date literature to ultimately inform decision-making.

This review aims to fill this gap by summarizing the most recent literature on digital detox interventions and their effects on well-being. Our aim is to summarize published reviews and the most recent research on the well-being effects of interventions intended to decrease social media use and screen time. By doing so, we seek to gain insights into both the positive and negative outcomes of these interventions and inform policy discussions and the development of effective measures that prioritize well-being. This evaluation should inform parents, educators, schools, policymakers, and the public at large when taking action.

Methods

In June 2023, a literature search was conducted in Google Scholar, PubMed, and ScienceDirect using the following keywords: Review, social media, screen time, digital, smartphone, intervention, digital detox, and time limit. We included all published reviews (1) focusing on interventions to reduce screen time/social media time and (2) any well-being outcome (with no restrictions on how well-being was defined). Additionally, we included the most recent published articles to incorporate new published articles not included in the searched reviews. We excluded studies and reviews measuring only screen/social media time as the outcome, or the effectiveness of interventions aiming at reducing screen time, or other outcomes unrelated to well-being.

The literature search turned out 2 reviews (for a total of 133 included studies) up to 2021. To bring up to date and include studies since 2021, we searched for all articles published between 2021 and 2023 that were not included in the previously published reviews. Overall, the 139 articles summarize the literature published in the last 10 years, from 2013 to 2023.

We excluded reviews^24–29 or articles³⁰ summarizing the efficacy of interventions aiming at reducing screen time only, without assessing well-being.

Results

The 2 included reviews and the 6 original articles are summarized as follows and in Table 1.

TABLE 1.

Key Elements of Included Studies

	Source	Intervention Details	Well-Being Construct Reported/Assessed
1.	Radtke et al31	• Review of 21 articles published between 2013 and 2020	• Health and well-being (including sleep, life satisfaction, affect, mood, boredom, anxiety, stress, depression, addiction)
		• Detox duration of included interventions: 24 h–4 wk	• Social relationships (fear of missing out, social connectedness, loneliness, social support, and social pressure)
			Other:
			• Performance (cognitive and physical performance)
			• Self-control (self-regulation, procrastination)
2.	Nassen et al32	• Review of 112 articles published between 2013 and 2021	• Serenity and calmness
		• Included interventions comprising a range of digital and nondigital tools	• Stress
		• Type of interventions: Quitting permanently, taking a break, reducing or relocating time from 1 device to another	Other:
		• Detox strategies implemented at the level of the device, platform, feature, and interaction or message level	• Offline relationships
			• Habitual use
			• Digital well-being
			• Self-regulatory strategies
			• Disconnection and sense of frustration
			• Free time and productivity
3.	Precht et al33	The intervention included:	Positive mental health
		• Reducing daily smartphone use by 60 min
		• Increasing daily physical activity by 30 min	Depressive and anxiety symptoms
		• Combination of both
		• Duration: 14 d	Other:
		• Sample: 503 German adults	Problematic smartphone use
4.	Gui et al35	The media education intervention included 4 modules:	General well-being (life satisfaction)
		• Time and Attention Management	Other:
		• Communication and Collaboration	Content management
		• Information Evaluation	Time management
5.	Hampton and Shin37	• Disconnection as a condition (restrictive media parenting and limited Internet access)	Self-esteem
		• Sample size: 3258 adolescents
		• No duration reported
6.	Choi et al38	The school-based mind subtraction meditation program included:	Instant and long-term satisfaction
		• Morning meditation sessions 2 times a wk (20 min each)	Stress
		• Sample size: 49 adolescents	Other:
		• Duration: About 3 mo	Smartphone addiction
			Problem focusing
			Social support navigation
7.	Wezel et al34	The randomized controlled trial included:	Emotional well-being
		• 50% vs 10% restriction of social media time	Fear of missing out
		• Sample size: 76 students	Other:
		• Duration: 7 d	Behavioral performance on sustained attention tasks
			Perceived attentional performance
			Impulsivity
			Self-control
			Habitual and problematic smartphone usage
8.	Brailovskaia et al36	The experimental study included:	Life satisfaction
		• Total abstinence versus reduction of 1 h in smartphone use	Anxiety symptoms
		• Sample size: 619 German participants	Depressive symptoms
		• Duration: 7 d	Other:
			Problematic and intense smartphone use
			Physical activity
			Smoking behavior

A first systematic review was published in 2021 by Radtke et al,³¹ who reviewed digital detox interventions, defined as the “voluntary and intentional” abstinence from using the smartphone and/or social media either completely or abstaining from using specific subsets of apps. This review included 21 studies, of which 12 were randomized controlled trials, published between 2013 and 2020. The total sample size of the 21 studies was 3625 participants, with study samples usually small and nonrepresentative (the majority was composed of university students). The duration of detox varied from a minimum of 24 hours to a maximum of 4 weeks, with 9 studies primarily examining 1-week intervals, 7 studies examining interventions of <1 week, and 4 having longer periods. Well-being included a variety of outcomes, such as health and well-being (including sleep, life satisfaction, affect, mood, boredom, anxiety, stress, depression, addiction), social relationships (fear of missing out, social connectedness, loneliness, social support, and social pressure), performance (cognitive and physical performance), and self-control (self-regulation, procrastination). Despite variation in the type of digital detox interventions, all studies reported a significant reduction in smartphone or app use, and 3 studies consistently found reduced depressive symptoms. However, any association with changes in well-being outcomes was either inconclusive or contradictory, showing positive, negative, and null effects. The studies from this review do not provide clear guidance on whether to promote or discard digital detox interventions. In other words, although digital detox interventions may work to reduce screen/social media time, whether they affect well-being or not is questionable. Also, the authors stated that “positive and counterproductive consequences need to be examined more clearly” by more high-quality research. The concept of digital detox was heterogeneously defined among included studies, with no consensus on how to label it and what the key elements of its definition are. Also, from a methodological perspective, most of the studies did not use reliable, objective measurements of the duration of smartphone and social media apps, but they mainly collected self-reported information on usage data. In addition, they did not evaluate possible other compensatory behaviors during the digital detox intervention, including using digital devices or social media platforms not investigated in the study or outside the focus of the detox intervention, or other confounding variables that might have affected the results.

In a review of 112 studies, Nassen et al³² focused on interventions for voluntary digital disconnection and its consequences on well-being, in addition to some other factors (including prevalence, motives, and relapse). They included articles published between 2013 and 2021 (with the majority since 2018) and comprised a range of interventions and tools encompassing both digital and nondigital approaches to support individuals in disengaging from digital devices. Digital tools included apps and/or software such as iOS Screen Time, Android Digital Wellbeing, Forest, RescueTime, and Disconnect. Nondigital tools to disconnect included Lockdoll or Stolp. The diversity in disconnection tools was reflected by the type of detox intervention, which went from quitting permanently, taking a break, and reducing or relocating time from 1 device to another. To note, the review highlighted a lack of validated measures to assess the construct of digital detox. Also, successful disconnection rates during the intervention were reported only in 17 of 112 articles and ranged from 34% to 67%, whereas no clear information on disconnection was reported in the other studies. Thematic analysis of the literature revealed motives, effects, and consequences associated with voluntary digital disconnection. In particular, participants decided to go offline because they perceived overuse (and questioned the value of spending too much time online) and wanted to ameliorate the quality of social interactions and self-presentation, or improve well-being and productivity. However, motivations to disconnect were also the ones to stay connected. Strategies were implemented at the level of the device (eg, stop using a device), platform (eg, stop using an app), feature (eg, stop using the feed feature), and interaction or message level (eg, stop interacting with someone). Although mapping effects on well-being were not the primary aim of the review, both positive and negative effects were reported, oftentimes contradictory. Indeed, for each positive effect, an opposite negative effect was identified. For example, if disconnection diminished stress, at the same time, it also increased stress. In other words, being disconnected or connected are 2 different reasons that can lead to feelings of stress. Also, if disconnection seemed to improve self-regulatory strategies, it could also lead to a quick relapse and reverting to old habits. In general, among positive outcomes, participants showed reduced habitual use, increased awareness of their own digital usage, higher perceived digital well-being (including feeling better and higher life satisfaction), an increase in the sense of serenity and calmness, a decrease in stress, improved offline relationships (like spending more family time), the development of sustainable self-regulatory strategies, a perception of having more free time (and more quality of time), and increased productivity (with fewer distractions or interruptions). On the other hand, negative effects included the sensation of missing online connection and not wanting to stay disconnected; a greater perception of one’s own problematic smartphone use; negative feelings (discomfort and unhappiness); increased frustration, agitation, and stress; the experience of loneliness and fear of missing out; and the possibility of relapsing into previous digital habits by stopping the disconnection.

These findings underline the complex nature of voluntary digital disconnection, revealing both positive and negative well-being outcomes. The results suggested that interventions and tools for digital disconnection can have beneficial effects on well-being (eg, lower depressive symptoms) and self-regulation. However, the studies also highlighted potential challenges and negative psychological effects of disconnecting from the digital world (eg, the experience of lower social well-being).

Considering that the review by Nassen et al³² summarized articles published up to mid-2021, we aimed to update the literature by describing original research published from 2021 to June 2023. Our search returned 6 articles^33–38 that offer valuable insights into the effects of lifestyle interventions promoting smartphone disconnection through different doses of digital detox and mobile media education on ill- and well-being outcomes.

Precht et al³³ tested whether interventions including reducing daily smartphone use by 60 minutes, increasing daily physical activity by 30 minutes, and combining both interventions (smartphone time reduction + increase in physical activity) effectively enhanced well-being over 14 days. Well-being included positive mental health and reduced depressive and anxiety symptoms. They reported, from a sample of 503 German adults, that, although all 3 interventions showed significant reduction in anxiety and depressive symptoms, reducing daily smartphone use or the combination of both (smartphone time reduction + increase in physical activity) was more effective in promoting positive mental health over time during follow-ups when compared with increasing daily physical activity only. Results suggest that reducing smartphone use may have a stronger impact on well-being than increasing physical activity only, and this effect can last up to 3 months. In contrast, in a randomized controlled trial with 76 student participants, Van Wezel et al³⁴ found that a 7-day 50% restriction on social media use did not lead to better attentional performance or greater emotional well-being compared with a 10% restriction in the control group (although screen time manipulation failed because the control group diminished screen time of 38% on average). Although this study used a behavioral measure of screen time (ie, participants donated log data of their smartphone use), the contrasting findings highlight the complexity of interventions targeting smartphone use and the need for further research, including the importance of differentiating nuances of digital detox (eg, total versus partial). Similarly, Brailovskaia et al³⁶ concluded that “a complete smartphone abstinence is not necessary” after comparing smartphone abstinence for 7 days with 1 hour of daily reduction of smartphone use for the same period in 619 German participants. In addition to smartphone use metrics, outcomes included life satisfaction, depressive and anxiety symptoms, physical activity, and smoking behaviors. Results showed that, with respect to the control group that continued to use the smartphone as usual, complete abstinence and a reduction positively affected subjective well-being and lifestyle behaviors up to 4 months after the intervention, with more stable effects for the reduction group. Reduction in anxiety and depressive symptoms was found only in the reduction group, together with less smoking behavior, whereas both groups increased physical activity levels. Interestingly, after 4 months, participants in the abstinence group spent 38 minutes less on the smartphone, whereas the decrease was up to 45 minutes in the reduction group. The authors suggested that a “sweet spot” of smartphone use, referring to a moderate reduction allowing for experiencing the advantages of being online without experiencing the negative effects, can be beneficial for well-being.

Gui et al³⁵ examined the results of a mobile media education module used by 80 teachers and 41 classes in Italy among 10th-grade students. The intervention included 789 participants and 2572 controls, and the main outcomes were problematic smartphone use, digital skills, and subjective well-being (ie, life satisfaction). This is an example of an intervention improving teachers’ autonomy in implementing media education activities. Although positive effects on perceived teacher support and smartphone time management (eg, lower levels of smartphone pervasiveness³⁹), the intervention did not significantly improve life satisfaction. To note, the study revealed a significant gender difference in the outcome, with females showing significantly greater advantages from their participation in the education program, both in terms of increased well-being and reduced smartphone pervasiveness. In addition, Choi et al³⁸ conducted an experiment in a small sample of school sophomores aged about 16 years. Participants in the experimental group took morning meditation sessions 2 times a week (20 minutes each) for about 3 months. Results showed lower levels of “smartphone addiction,” higher instant satisfaction, and long-term satisfaction. In addition, reduced stress, ameliorated problem focus, and social support were also reported. This study highlighted how mindfulness can be useful in diminishing smartphone addiction, boosting well-being and healthy coping behaviors.

Interestingly, by looking at how disconnection could protect young people from harmful effects (like displacing time for in-person social interactions), a study by Hampton and Shin³⁷ looked at disconnection not as an intervention but as a condition to which adolescents living in rural areas of Michigan (United States) are exposed to. Data from 3258 adolescents on the impact of disconnection, defined by restrictive media parenting and limited Internet access, on self-esteem showed that disconnection had a more detrimental effect on self-esteem than heavy social media use alone. Interestingly, heavy social media use showed a negligible relationship to self-esteem when compared with other predictors like gender and academic performance. Also, the authors found no meaningful displacement in time spent with family or friends because of screen time. On the opposite end, adolescents who reported more social media time also spent more time doing activities like sports, further contributing to time with family and friends. This means that geography might matter when limiting/reducing digital media use because (young) people living in rural areas might experience more negative consequences than those living in urban areas.

Discussion

Overall, the included reviews and research studies highlighted the complexity and multifaceted relationship between interventions to reduce social media and smartphone intervention use and their effects on well-being. According to the 2 reviews,^31,32 challenges span from conceptualizing digital detox to research methods, with no clear definition of digital detox, no validated measures to assess the intervention, and different outcomes tackling diverse aspects of well-being. According to the most recent research studies, reducing social media/smartphone use (versus complete detox) and engaging in lifestyle interventions may have positive effects on mental health. However, how the “extra” time gained (from reducing screen time) can be better allocated to other activities. The difference in the effect size between screen time reduction versus complete detox, and the best option for improving well-being in the long-term are still open questions. Indeed, future research should further compare the effects of intervention studies focusing on different types of detox and alternative complementary activities. Also, the findings suggest that a holistic approach taking into account different factors such as the role of educators, family, gender differences, and contextual factors (eg, rural versus urban areas) is necessary when considering the effects of digital detox on well-being.

There are 4 major points worth our discussion.

First, according to the reviews, there is still large heterogeneity in the definition of digital detox with all its nuances, from complete abstinence to reduction. This heterogeneity is reflected in the lack of a clear assessment of interventions. In particular, there is no consensus on the key factors for a successful intervention. The lack of validated scales and the search for adequate measures mirror the discussion in the literature regarding the pitfalls of both self-reported and log data³² used to study media effects and the consequences of interventions. Similarly, except for screen and social media time outcomes, studies looked at diverse well-being outcomes, making it difficult to cleanly summarize the results (eg, into a meta-analysis). Potential variation and composition of interventions need to be examined in the future, including the duration of the digital detox period, the initial level of problematic/excessive smartphone use, the type of intervention, and its combination with other activities (eg, physical activity), before the utility of digital detox interventions can be determined adequately.³¹ Also, multidisciplinary approaches should be encouraged when evaluating the effects of interventions, including biological markers of well-being⁴⁰ and neuroscientific evaluations.⁴¹

Second, although the reviews highlighted different types of detox, recent studies showed encouraging results for interventions aiming to reduce smartphone/social media time rather than promote total abstinence. Indeed, the beneficial effects of the former seemed to outperform the latter. In particular, screen time reduction can act as a sweet spot³⁶ by keeping positive and eliminating the negative of smartphone and social media use, though it is not clear of how much it should be reduced. This consideration aligns with what is called the Digital Goldilocks hypothesis¹³ for which, especially in adolescents, moderate use of digital devices is not detrimental but can actually improve well-being, by keeping people socially connected. However, the 2 reviews only considered studies focusing on digital detox, and more evidence is needed to compare abstinence to reduction.

Third, included studies mapped the mainly investigated well-being constructs and how they are both positively and negatively related to detox, but they also showed that the effect of interventions might vary depending on ill- versus well-being outcomes considered. In general, if abstinence can momentarily improve mood, lowering anxiety and stress levels, in the long run, it might be detrimental to life satisfaction and social connection and promote withdrawal symptoms and relapse. Only interventions with follow-ups can report on the duration of the effects. Similarly, new concepts like digital flourishing^42,43 (encompassing dimensions like social media connectedness, positive social comparison, authentic self-expression and self-control) should now be included as possible mediators of the relationship between smartphone/social media time and well-being. Interventions in adolescents should optimize the possible positive effects of social media use while reducing harm. For example, interventions for adolescents should consider how social relationships and friendship^44,45 are today shaped by the online environment, which creates new opportunities for socialization. According to a mapping review,⁴⁶ positive mental health among youth could be influenced by 3 features of social media consumption, including connection with friends and their global community, engagement with social media content, and the value of social media as an outlet for expression. We encourage decision-makers to focus more on how to promote a healthy use of social media and smartphone use from all angles rather than looking at detox as the only solution.

Fourth, from both reviews and research studies, we can say that the effects of interventions differ according to gender, age, and contextual factors (eg, urban versus rural areas); however, more research is needed to establish what variables might play a more crucial role. In other words, because there is no effect of social media use on well-being that fits all, the same can be said for interventions. Although evidence of interventions conducted in adolescent populations is still scarce, initial results from a research study³⁵ show that girls might benefit more than boys. This would align with literature reporting gender differences in terms of psychological vulnerabilities, especially for depressive and anxiety symptoms⁴⁷ and emotion regulation,⁴⁸ as well as different windows of developmental sensitivity to the effects of social media use.⁴⁹ However, we should also acknowledge that, from all included studies, there is a complete lack of literature on more inclusive interventions considering minorities like LGBTQ+ populations. Preliminary findings showed that the possibility of enhancing positive representation of and connection with other LGBTQIA+ groups is a key element in designing digital interventions,⁵⁰ especially considering that they risk suffering more stigma and psychological problems.⁵¹ Other factors to further evaluate are interventions for people experiencing health disparities⁵² and chronic health conditions,⁵³ for which online social media platforms would create opportunities to connect with similar communities. Last but not least, the included populations came from Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic countries, thus calling for research focusing on populations coming from the global South.^54,55 Overall, additional investigation is required to gain a more comprehensive understanding of particular demographic groups that would benefit from such interventions. The lack of data on certain population groups reflects the problem of “data absenteeism”^56,57 in research and creates concern for the quality of collected data in addressing key questions on well-being disparities.⁵⁶

Conclusions

This state-of-the-art review highlights the importance of examining, with empirical, high-quality research, the circumstances under which digital detox interventions are helpful (eg, what type/combination of interventions and for what outcome) and for whom (considering different sociodemographic, social and contextual factors). Conceptual and methodological limitations showed that further research is needed to elaborate appropriate measures looking at the evaluation and efficacy of interventions, including a more precise definition of the outcome of interest, that should reflect what policymakers aim to improve at the public health level. The available evidence is too limited and poorly representative of different populations to inform a policymaking agenda at a large scale.

In particular, examining moderating and mediating variables would contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the utility and effectiveness of digital detox interventions. That would request high-quality research, including bigger sample sizes, randomized controlled field experiments, reliable measures, long-term interventions with longitudinal designs, and follow-ups. Further research is needed to explore the long-term effects and generalizability of these interventions.