Addictive digital habits in early adolescence linked to mental health struggles

 New research following US adolescents ages 11–12 shows that problematic use of mobile phones, social media, and video games was associated with higher risks of mental health problems, sleep disturbance, and suicidal behaviors one year later. The study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, published by Elsevier, reveals that the links between problematic screen use and mental health are stronger than those previously reported for overall screen time and highlights the risks of addictive use.

Screen use increases rapidly during early adolescence, which is also a critical window when mental health challenges, sleep problems, and substance use often begin to emerge. An estimated 49.5% of adolescents in the US have experienced mental illness.

While much of the prior research has focused on overall screen time or older adolescents, this research focused on problematic, addiction-like patterns of screen use in early adolescence and whether they are associated with later adverse health outcomes.

Lead investigator Jason M. Nagata, MD, Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Francisco, explains, “Problematic screen use is when kids can’t control their time online, even if they try, and it starts to cause stress, conflicts, or problems at school or home. It can also lead to withdrawal-like feelings, needing more time online to feel satisfied, and repeated relapses, much like other addictive behaviors.”

The researchers analyzed data from over 8,000 participants in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study, the largest long-term study of brain development and child health in the US, following youth from ages 11–12 to one year later.

The study found that problematic mobile phone and social media use were prospectively associated with higher depressive, somatic, attention/deficit, oppositional defiant, and conduct problems scores; suicidal behaviors; sleep disturbance; and substance initiation.

Problematic video game use was associated with higher depressive, attention/deficit, and oppositional defiant scores; suicidal behaviors; and sleep disturbance.

This study addresses key evidence gaps highlighted by the US Surgeon General in a 2023 Advisory on Social Media and Youth Mental Health by using a prospective design, focusing on early adolescents, and examining problematic screen use rather than screen time alone.

Responding to ongoing concerns about youth mental health and the rapid rise of digital media use at younger ages, this study’s findings are poised to shape future health policy and clinical practice. The results underpin the necessity of interventions specifically tailored to early adolescents, as this is a critical period during which psychological vulnerabilities often first manifest.

Dr. Nagata points out, “Not all screen time is harmful. The real risk comes when use becomes addictive or problematic, when kids can’t stop, feel stressed if they don’t use it, or it starts to disrupt sleep, mood, or daily life.”

“Our findings suggest that digital platforms and families alike should consider ways to reduce addictive features of apps and social media, since these patterns of use are modifiable and can affect adolescent mental health,” he concludes.

---

Journal

American Journal of Preventive Medicine

DOI

10.1016/j.amepre.2025.108248 

Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants

 

The Institute of Education Sciences has released a new evaluation report, Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants: What Districts are Prioritizing with the New Flexibilities under ESSA’s Title IV-A Program. The report examines how a nationally representative set of districts reported spending their ESSA Title IV-A funds in the 2021–22 school year and how they perceived the mix of new flexibilities and constraints introduced under ESSA.   To access the report, please visit: https://ies.ed.gov/use-work/resource-library/report/evaluation-report/student-support-and-academic-enrichment-grants-what-districts-are-prioritizing-new-flexibilities-0.

Pay gap among academics does not stop at university

The pay gap between men and women does not disappear when they leave university, even with a PhD. In fact, immediately after obtaining their doctorate, women already start with an average disadvantage of 171 euros per month, which only increases throughout their career. This is according to research by Radboud University and the University of Groningen, published this week in Research in Social Stratification and Mobility.

It has long been known that there is a pay gap in the academic world. "But many young researchers leave academia after completing their PhD (whether by choice or necessity). We were curious to find out whether the commonly held assumption that PhD graduates can earn more outside academia is correct", says Anne Maaike Mulders, sociologist at Radboud University and one of the authors of the article. For the study, Mulders and her colleagues used salary data from Statistics Netherlands (CBS) to track more than 4,500 PhD researchers for up to sixteen years after obtaining their doctorates.

“Immediately after obtaining their doctorate, women earn an average of 171 euros less per month than their male colleagues. That difference only increases in the years that follow, regardless of whether they work within or outside the university”, Mulders points out. “Even when you take working hours, type of contract, field of study and family composition into account in the data, there is no clear explanation for this development.”

Small short term salary gains

And is there really more money to be earned outside the university? “Only in the short term,” explains Mulders. "In the long term, academics earn more within the university. This pattern is particularly strong for women. They benefit from a relatively strong salary increase after leaving the university, but later see their income growth stagnate more than men. Because women leave the university faster and more often than men, income inequality is only exacerbated."

“Of course, not everyone can stay at the university; due to shortages and competition, this is not always possible. The departure of women from science is seen as a loss for the academic field, but it is often thought that scientists outside the university can at least earn more. For example, that after obtaining a technical PhD, you immediately receive a much higher salary at a pharmaceutical company,” says Mulders. “We don't see that reflected in the data.”

Structural factors limit salaries

According to the researcher, this shows that structural factors in society play a role. "It's important not to blame women, for example by suggesting that they are less skilled at negotiating or that starting a family is the only thing limiting their salaries. That image is not accurate. What we see in the data seems to be more in line with broader inequality in salaries and career opportunities. Wherever women end up, whether inside or outside the university, they systematically earn less than men with similar backgrounds."

---

Journal

Research in Social Stratification and Mobility

DOI

10.1016/j.rssm.2026.101132 

Is Teacher Effectiveness Fully Portable?

 This study examines how performance changes when teachers transfer across very different school contexts. The Talent Transfer Initiative program created a rare natural experiment to study such transfers by randomly assigning low-achieving schools the ability to offer high-performing teachers at higher-achieving schools a $20,000 transfer stipend. 

Forecast tests show that these high-performing teachers’ prior value added is only moderately predictive of their effectiveness in low-achieving schools. 

Using a difference-in-differences framework, the authors estimate that incentivized-transfer teachers’ value added dropped by 0.12 student standard deviations. This decline appears to be driven by lower match quality, negative indirect school effects, and the loss of student-specific human capital.

High to very high psychosocial safety risks among universitiy staff

A landmark report from Adelaide University is providing the most comprehensive picture to date of psychosocial safety across Australia’s higher education sector.

The Australian Research Council (ARC)-funded study identifies widespread wellbeing and psychosocial safety issues across higher education.

It points to increasing levels of high and very high psychosocial risk driven by weaknesses in safety systems including poor management support, insufficient prioritisation of staff wellbeing, limited communication and consultation, and gaps in how psychosocial risks are identified and managed.

Released today, the Australian Universities Census on Staff Wellbeing* ranks 36 of Australia’s 42 universities against national psychosocial safety climate benchmarks, with the top three performers being Charles Darwin University, the University of New South Wales, and the University of Queensland. 

Across the sector, the report found:

• More than 80% of staff reported high or very high levels of emotional exhaustion
• All universities recorded high or very high psychosocial safety risks.
• More than three-quarters of staff reported elevated psychosocial safety risk levels.
• Risk levels were consistently high across gender, role, and employment level.
• Psychosocial safety climate risks in universities are more than double those in the general workforce.
• 73% disagreed that risks to their psychological health were actively monitored.

Lead researcher ARC Laureate Professor Maureen Dollard says while the results are very concerning, they also present opportunities for the higher education sector to address working conditions and staff wellbeing. She says the research offers universities a clear roadmap for action.

“Over recent decades, Australian universities have undergone profound transformation, with deregulation, intensified competition, and a productivity driven agenda reshaping the sector,” Laureate Prof Dollard says. 

“Universities have also been challenged by increasing workloads, job insecurity and losses, restructures, technological overload, cuts to funding, as well as public scrutiny of governance and executive remuneration.

“Despite multiple government reviews – including the Australian Universities Accord and a Senate Inquiry – staff wellbeing has received little direct attention.

“Staff are the backbone of teaching, research, and student support. Yet their psychological health has been neglected for far too long. Without urgent action, the sector’s ability to deliver high-quality education, world-class research, and positive student experiences will be compromised.

“This study shows that psychosocial safety is not an isolated issue – it’s a sector-wide challenge and requires a sector wide approach. It also requires a shift in the mindset of university management – from a productivity agenda – to prioritise worker psychological health and wellbeing as a key performance indicator.

“By presenting Australia’s universities with a robust set of national goals and benchmarks, institutions now have a solid starting point from which to address and improve psychosocial safety.”

The Australian Universities Census on Staff Wellbeing represents the view of more than 11,500 university staff across 42 Australian universities.

 

Findings from the report will be discussed at an online national seminar today, featuring Adelaide University Prof Dollard, Charles Darwin University Vice-Chancellor Professor Scott Bowman, Safe Work Australia CEO Marie Boland and NTEU National Assistant Secretary Gabe Gooding.

Under Australian Work Health and Safety laws, universities are obligated to prevent and manage psychosocial risks.

Adelaide University Vice-Chancellor Professor Nicola Phillips says findings reinforce the importance of putting staff wellbeing at the heart of the new institution.

“As a new university, Adelaide University has a unique opportunity to learn from this national evidence and embed strong psychosocial safety practices from the outset,” Prof Phillips says.

“We recognise the pressures facing the higher education sector and are committed to building a workplace that supports our people.

“We are prioritising engagement, listening to feedback, and keeping open channels so all staff feel supported and valued as we work together to shape a healthy culture for our new university.”

Prof Dollard says ongoing transparency and collaboration is critical.

“By prioritising psychosocial safety, universities can rebuild trust, strengthen performance, and create workplaces that support the wellbeing of the people who make higher education possible.”

 

Notes to editors:

• *The Psychosocial Climate Global Observatory team based at Adelaide University is responsible for the report. The team includes ARC Laureate Professor Maureen Dollard, Professor Kurt Lushington, Dr Amy Zadow, and Daniel Neser.
• The full report is available here: https://stresscafe.net/census/

Academic pressure linked to increased risk of depression risk in teens

 Pressure to achieve at school at age 15 is linked to depressive symptoms and risk of self-harm, and the association appears to persist into adulthood, finds a study led by University College London (UCL) researchers.

The authors of the new study, published in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, say their findings suggest that reducing academic pressure in schools could reduce depression and self-harm among young people.

Senior author Professor Gemma Lewis (UCL Psychiatry) said: “In recent years, rates of depression have been rising among young people in the UK and in other countries, and academic pressure also appears to be on the rise. Young people report that academic pressure is one of their biggest sources of stress. A certain amount of pressure to succeed in school can be motivating, but too much pressure can be overwhelming and may be detrimental to mental health.

“We found that young people who felt more pressured by schoolwork at age 15 went on to report higher levels of depressive symptoms, for multiple years into adulthood.”

For their study, the researchers reviewed evidence from 4,714 adolescents from the Children of the 90s birth cohort study (Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children – ALSPAC), a longitudinal cohort study of parents and their children born in the southwest of England in 1991 and 1992, who have been surveyed at regular intervals.

The authors of the current paper used questionnaire responses from when study participants were aged 15, close to the time of GCSE exams, to reflect academic pressure. Young people reported whether they worry a lot about getting their schoolwork done, whether they feel a lot of pressure from home to do well in school, and the importance of achieving at least five GCSEs.

Depressive symptoms were tracked repeatedly in survey responses from ages 16 to 22, and self-harm was assessed up to age 24.

The researchers found strong evidence that academic pressure at age 15 is linked to higher depressive symptoms at age 16, and the association persists for multiple years. Study participants who experienced high levels of academic pressure when they were 15 continued to report more depressive symptoms at each time point up to age 22.

Each one-point increase on a nine-point scale of academic pressure at age 15 was associated with 8% increased odds of self-harm, through mid-late adolescence and into the early 20s. Academic pressure at age 15 was associated with greater risk of self-harm as late as age 24.

In a secondary analysis, the researchers also found that academic pressure at age 11 and 14 was linked to depressive symptoms.

The researchers say their findings suggest that alleviating academic pressure for teenagers could have benefits to mental health, and should be considered by schools and educational policymakers. Potential solutions might involve reducing tests and assessments or supporting the development of social and emotional skills.

They say they hope to develop a whole-school intervention, aiming to change the school environment, culture and values, in a way that could reduce academic pressure and improve mental health and wellbeing.

Professor Lewis said: “Current approaches to help pupils with mental health tend to be focused on helping individual pupils cope; we hope to address academic pressure at the whole-school level by addressing the school culture.”

The authors say that more up-to-date data is still needed to understand how current pressures may be linked to mental health, as the study participants were aged 15 in 2006-07, so the findings do not reflect the impacts of later policy changes or of the Covid-19 pandemic. They caution that the study was observational, so the findings cannot prove cause and effect. They also note that they did not use a standardised measure of academic pressure, and the measure they used combined both external pressure (such as from parents or teachers) and internal pressure which could be driven by the pupil’s own worries and priorities.

The study was funded by Wellcome and the Royal Society.

Tolu Fashina-Ayilara, Senior Policy and Influencing Officer at mental health charity Mind, commented: “UCL’s study highlights the significant harm academic pressure can have on young people’s mental health. This supports Mind’s previous research, in which almost four in five young people (78%) reported that school had made their mental health worse. Evidence like this shows why we need to take increasing rates of poor mental health among young people seriously and explore the social, emotional, and economic pressures driving these trends. This focus is crucial to reduce the number of young people struggling with their mental health and making sure all young people have the right support to thrive.”

Journal

The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health

DOI

10.1016/S2352-4642(25)00342-6 

School restrictive smartphone policies may save a small amount of money

 School restrictive smartphone policies may save a small amount of money for schools, primarily by reducing the amount of time staff spend on managing phone-related behaviours, but they make little difference to pupils’ quality of life or mental wellbeing, finds a health economic analysis, published in the online journal BMJ Mental Health.

 

By the age of 12, most children own a phone and use social media, with teens reportedly spending between 4 and 6 hours a day on their phones and 2–4 hours a day on social media, note the researchers. Spending a lot of time on smartphones and social media tends to be associated with poorer mental health, they add.

 

In the UK, an estimated 1 in 5 children between the ages of 11 and 16 probably has a mental health issue—mostly anxiety and depression—they point out.

 

Many countries have introduced restrictive smartphone policies for secondary schools, with the aim of improving pupils’ mental wellbeing and academic performance. But it’s not entirely clear how successful these policies have been, or whether they represent value for money, explain the researchers.

 

To find out, they carried out a cost–utility analysis as part of an observational study on school smartphone policies in England (SMART Schools), comparing schools with restrictive and permissive policies.

 

In schools with restrictive policies, phones weren’t allowed to be used during the school day for recreational purposes and had to be turned off and inside bags, or stored in lockers, or kept in a pouch, or handed into the school reception, or not allowed onto the premises.

 

In permissive schools, phones were allowed to be used at any time, or at certain times, such as during breaks or lunch, and/or in certain zones—-outside, for example.

 

Complete survey data were collected from 815 pupils, aged 12 to 15 (years 8-10) from 20 schools (13 restrictive; 7 permissive), 36 teachers, and 20 senior members of staff responsible for their school’s smartphone policy completed online questionnaires between November 2022 and November 2023. 

 

Outcomes were measured in quality adjusted life years (QALYs), a standard measure where one QALY equals one year of life lived in perfect health, and in MWALYs—the equivalent measure for good mental health and wellbeing.

 

The analysis revealed that the differences in pupils’ quality of life and mental wellbeing between restrictive and permissive schools were minimal.

 

But school staff spent a significant amount of time each week administering smartphone policies and managing phone-related behaviours, irrespective of policy type—equivalent to 3.1 full timers in restrictive schools and 3.3 full timers in permissive schools.

 

The researchers calculated that the cost per pupil for each school year (39 weeks) in restrictive schools was £94 less than in permissive schools, and would only be cost effective at a threshold of £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY---the threshold generally accepted as representing value for money.

 

This is an observational study, and as such, no firm conclusions can be drawn about cause and effect. And the researchers acknowledge that they had no information on costs and outcomes before and after the implementation of a more restrictive phone policy.

 

Nevertheless, they highlight: “This study provides further evidence that there are unlikely to be differences in pupils’ mental health and wellbeing outcomes in adolescents attending schools with a restrictive or permissive smartphone policy.” 

 

They add: “Restrictive phone policies could offer small economic benefits to schools by reducing the amount of time school staff spend managing pupil phone-related behaviours.”

 

They conclude: “Overall, the findings highlight the need for development of current school phone policy and practices to reduce school staff time spent managing adolescent phone use, potentially freeing up resources for more beneficial educational and wellbeing activities.”

 

And they point out: “On smartphones, we currently lack an evidence-based best practice approach to addressing phone and social media use by adolescents. Therefore, all new approaches need to be accompanied by robust evaluation.”

 

---

Journal

BMJ Mental Health

DOI

10.1136/bmjment-2025-301892