THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL

TECHNOLOGIES ON
WELL-BEING:
MAIN INSIGHTS FROM
THE LITERATURE

OECD PAPERS ON WELL-BEING

AND INEQUALITIES
See all papers in this series

WORKING PAPER No.29

Jihye Lee,
Ziga Zarnic

Restricted Use - À usage restreint

 WISE(2024)8 |1

OECD Papers on Well-being and

Inequalities

See all papers in this series

The OECD Papers on Well-being and Inequalities Series – managed by the OECD Centre on Well-being,
Inclusion, Sustainability and Equal Opportunity (WISE) – features working papers on the measurement
agenda for well-being, inclusion, sustainability and equal opportunity as well as papers seeking to deepen
the understanding of the drivers of these issues, the ways in which they interact and how they evolve.
These papers are prepared by OECD staff, external experts or by outside consultants working on OECD
projects.
OECD Working Papers should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its
Member countries. The opinions expressed and arguments employed are those of the author(s).
Working Papers describe preliminary results or research in progress by the author(s) and are published to
stimulate discussion on a broad range of issues on which the OECD works. Comments on Working Papers
are welcomed and may be sent to [email protected].
This series is designed to make available to a wider readership selected labour market, social policy and
migration studies prepared for use within the OECD. Authorship is usually collective, but principal writers
are named. The papers are generally available only in their original language – English or French – with
summary in the other.
This document is without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of
international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
The release of this working paper has been authorised by Romina Boarini, Director of the OECD Centre
on Well-being, Inclusion, Sustainability and Equal Opportunity (WISE).
© OECD 2024

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
2 | WISE(2024)8

Acknowledgements

This paper was prepared by the OECD Centre on Well-Being, Inclusion, Sustainability and Equal
Opportunity (WISE).
It was developed under the leadership of Romina Boarini, (Director of WISE). The report was written by
Jihye Lee (Senior Policy Analyst) and Ziga Zarnic (Head of Reviews SDGs and Impact Measurement Unit)
with editorial oversight from Romina Boarini. Anne-Lise Faron (WISE Publications and Event Coordinator)
prepared the paper for publication. Martine Zaïda (WISE Communications, Partnership and Forum
Manager) provided support and advice on communication aspects.
We are also grateful to Junya Ino (Policy Analyst) and Kate Chalmers (Data and Knowledge Scientist) at
WISE for their analytical contributions to earlier drafts. We greatly appreciate comments received by Lisa
Robinson, Julia Carro, Lauren Crean, Clarisse Girot, Alexia González Fanfalone, Molly Lesher, Andras
Molnar, Karine Perset, Nikolas Schmidt, Bénédicte Schmitt, Limor Shmerling Magazanik and Jeremy West
from the OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation (STI); Marco Paccagnella and Samo
Varsik from the OECD Directorate for Education (EDU); and Lara Fleischer and Jessica Mahoney from
WISE.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
 WISE(2024)8 |3

Table of contents

OECD Papers on Well-being and Inequalities 1

Acknowledgements 2
Abstract 4
Résumé 5
1. Introduction and main findings 6
2. Main insights from the literature on the relationship between digital technologies
and people’s well-being 11
2.1. Exploring the literature 11
2.2. Digital technologies and health 13
2.3. Digital technologies, social connections and loneliness 19
2.4. Digital technologies, civic engagement and trust 22
Digital technologies and personal safety 25
2.5. Digital technologies and other dimensions of people’s well-being 26

3. Digital divides and well-being 29

3.1. Skills Divide 30
3.2. Socio-economic divide 31
3.3. Age, gender and accessibility divides 31
3.4. Geographical and political divide 33

References 35
Annex A. The list of reviewed academic articles (selected) 51

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
4 | WISE(2024)8

Abstract

Digital technologies can shape different aspects of people’s lives. When widely accessible and navigated
with strong technical skills, these technologies can have positive effects on economic well-being, through
their effects on labour markets, productivity, and consumption. However, their effects on social and
relational aspects of well-being are less clear-cut. Recent literature highlights that digital technologies (and
digital media in particular) can have both positive and negative effects across different dimensions of well-
being, with risks entailed by excessive or problematic use of these media. For instance, excessive use of
digital devices for leisure correlates with lower student performance and lower sense of belonging in
schools. The overall impact of digital technologies on health is nuanced: on the one hand, tech-enabled
healthcare, improves access to medical information and services, which can enhance well-being. On the
other hand, heavy use of digital media and devices can be associated with anxiety, depression and
isolation and, especially among, young women they can be the source of behavioral problems. Similarly,
digital technologies have changed the way people connect socially, but their effect on social isolation and
loneliness remains complex and not fully understood. The influence of digital technologies on civic
engagement is also double-edged. While they have facilitated participation in public life, they have
simultaneously fuelled mis- and dis-information, fostering mistrust in online information and potentially
exacerbating political polarization. Moreover, the rise in online harassment, particularly against women
and sexual minorities, highlights the darker aspects of digital interactions. Understanding the relationship
between digital technology use and subjective well-being requires further study. Finally, digital
technologies can help bridge digital divides, but it can also interact and reinforce them, potentially
worsening existing inequalities.
JEL Classification: I1, I3
Keywords: digitalisation, well-being, health, social connections, subjective well-being, civic engagement,
personal safety, work-life balance, digital divide

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
 WISE(2024)8 |5

Résumé

Les technologies numériques peuvent façonner différents aspects de la vie des gens. Lorsqu'elles sont
largement accessibles et que l'on y navigue avec de solides compétences techniques, ces technologies
peuvent avoir des effets positifs sur le bien-être économique, grâce à leurs effets sur les marchés du
travail, la productivité et la consommation. Toutefois, leurs effets sur les aspects sociaux et relationnels du
bien-être sont moins évidents. La littérature récente souligne que les technologies numériques peuvent
avoir des effets à la fois positifs et négatifs sur différentes dimensions du bien-être, avec des risques liés
à une utilisation excessive ou problématique des technologies numériques. Cependant, leurs effets sur les
aspects sociaux et relationnels du bien-être sont moins clairs. La littérature récente souligne que les
technologies numériques (et les médias numériques en particulier) peuvent avoir des effets à la fois positifs
et négatifs sur différentes dimensions du bien-être, avec des risques liés à une utilisation excessive ou
problématique de ces médias. Par exemple, l’utilisation excessive des appareils numériques pour les
loisirs est corrélée à une baisse des performances des élèves et à une diminution de leur sentiment
d’inclusion. L’impact global des technologies numériques sur la santé est nuancé : d’une part, les soins de
santé assistés par la technologie améliorent l’accès à l’information et aux services médicaux, ce qui peut
améliorer le bien-être. D’autre part, l’utilisation intensive des médias et des appareils numériques peut être
associée à l’anxiété, à la dépression et à l’isolement et, en particulier chez les jeunes femmes, elle peut
être à l’origine de problèmes comportementaux. De même, les technologies numériques ont changé la
façon dont les gens se connectent socialement, mais leur effet sur l'isolement social et la solitude reste
complexe et n'est pas entièrement compris. L'influence des technologies numériques sur l'engagement
civique est également à double tranchant. Si elles ont facilité la participation à la vie publique, elles ont en
même temps alimenté la désinformation, favorisant la méfiance à l'égard des informations en ligne et
pouvant exacerber la polarisation politique. En outre, l'augmentation du harcèlement en ligne, en particulier
à l'encontre des femmes et des minorités sexuelles, met en lumière les aspects les plus sombres des
interactions numériques. La compréhension de la relation entre l'utilisation de la technologie numérique et
le bien-être subjectif nécessite des études plus approfondies. Enfin, les technologies numériques peuvent
contribuer à combler la fracture numérique, mais elles peuvent aussi interagir avec elle et la renforcer, ce
qui risque d'aggraver les inégalités existantes.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
6 | WISE(2024)8

1. Introduction and main findings

How do digital technologies affect us? This paper reviews the literature to better understand their impact
on individual and societal well-being, building on a field of research that, while still in its infancy, is growing
rapidly. Existing research explores these issues in various ways and broadly speaking, there is no
consensual definition of “digital well-being” or a consistent framework to examine the impacts of digital
technologies on people’s well-being.
Academic research tends to focus on digital well-being from the perspective of how individuals are able to
develop and manage a healthy relationship with technology 1, 2. Increasingly, it considers the subjective
aspects of one’s individual experience with technology, including affective and cognitive appraisals of how
digital connectivity is integrated into ordinary life (Vanden Abeele and Nguyen, 2022[1]). The focus on the
subjective dimensions of digital well-being takes into account a social environment where digital media are
omnipresent (Büchi, 2021[2]) and aims to understand if individuals can channel digital media usage towards
a sense of comfort, safety, satisfaction and fulfilment (Gui, Fasoli and Carradore, 2017[3]). Some of the
literature focuses on specific well-being outcomes, such as quality and quantity of sleep, eye strain,
depression and anxiety, perceived social isolation, and attention-deficit or hyperactivity disorder (Economic
Commission for Europe, 2020[4]). Davis (2024[5]), on the other hand, focuses more narrowly on the digital
users’ ability to control their digital behaviours.
Policy work, on the other hand, refers to digital well-being in a broader context, emphasising the wide range
of implications that digital technologies can have for people’s life and societal well-being. For instance,
(OECD, 2019[6]) considers the impacts of technology through a prism of the OECD Well-Being Framework
(Figure 1), assessing how it is affecting eleven key dimensions of people’s well-being (i.e. income and
wealth, jobs and earnings, housing, health status, education and skills, work-life balance, civic engagement
and governance, social connections, environmental quality, personal security and subjective well-being).
Some of the well-being dimensions are interdependent, meaning that changes in one dimension can
influence others. For instance, while digital technology can directly impact health, the extent and nature of
this impact can be moderated by education and skills. Higher levels of education and skills may amplify
the positive effects or mitigate the negative ones, while lower levels might lead to weaker or adverse
outcomes.
In this context, the next section updates the analysis from the 2019 OECD’s How’s Life in the Digital Age
report (Box 1.1), reviewing the more recently published literature on the relationship between digital

1 For instance, researchers at the National University of Singapore (Yue et al., 2021[220]) define digital well-being as
“an umbrella term that encompasses various dimensions of the digital life: crafting and maintaining a healthy
relationship with technology that can be used in a balanced and civic way; identifying and understanding the positive
and negative impacts of engaging with digital activities; being aware of ways to manage and control factors that
contribute to digital wellbeing”. Nine dimensions of digital well-being were identified: digital safety & security, digital
rights & responsibilities, digital communication, digital emotional intelligence, digital creativity, digital health & self-care,
digital consumerism, digital employment & entrepreneurship, and digital activism/participation.
2 Burr and Floridi’s approach (2020
[219]) to digital well-being is also broad, referring loosely to “the project of studying
the impact that digital technologies, such as social media, smartphones, and AI, have had on our well-being and our
self-understanding of what it means to live a life that is good for us in an increasingly digital society.”

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
 WISE(2024)8 |7

technologies and people’s well-being, since the report was released, in view of the fast pace of
technological development. The final section summarises the main digital divides highlighted in the
literature (e.g., OECD’s reports on digital divides including (OECD, 2021[7]) and (OECD, 2018[8])), helping
to better understand how people with different characteristics (i.e., in terms of skills, gender, income,
geographic location, education, age, ethnicity, and disabilities) may be at risk or draw uneven benefits from
the use of digital technologies.
The review focuses on a selection of well-being dimensions (i.e., health, social connections, civic
engagement, personal safety, subjective well-being) introduced by OECD’s How’s Life in the Digital Age
(OECD, 2019[6]) and OECD’s Measuring Well-being in the Digital Age (Hatem and Ker, 2021[9]) reports. It
also seeks to complement other OECD work focused on specific aspects of well-being, for instance, on
income and wealth (OECD, 2022[10]; 2023[11]); employment (OECD, 2023[12]; OECD/ILO/European Union,
2023[13]); education and skills (OECD, 2023[14]; 2023[15]; 2024[16]; Varsik and Vosberg, 2024[17]); mental
health (OECD, 2024[18]) and others considering well-being implications of digital technologies (e.g., social
media, tech-enabled healthcare, digital applications, generative artificial intelligence). A simple typology of
different types of experiences with digital technologies is introduced to illustrate the interplay between
potentially beneficial and harmful outcomes from a well-being perspective.
The main findings from the literature review carried out in this paper can be summarised as follows.
Raising the awareness of benefits and risks associated with digital technology is key:
• Educating people about potential online dangers, such as phishing scams, misinformation, and
data privacy concerns, enables them to make informed decisions. With heightened awareness,
individuals are better equipped to recognise and avoid threats, ensuring their safety and well-being
in the digital space.
• Awareness transforms users into vigilant digital citizens, reducing vulnerability and enhancing
overall security. By increasing transparency of new technologies applied while fostering digital
literacy, people can gain the confidence to use technology effectively, unlocking opportunities for
education, employment, and personal growth.
• At the same time, it is crucial for people to understand well how technologies can affect their mental
health. For example, AI systems can provide tailored support for specific mental health conditions
and cognitive disabilities, unaffordable for many before. But at the same time, excessive use of
digital devices can contribute to depression, loneliness, and stress, leading to problems in
behaviour and conduct.
• Different types of technology like social media and AI can change the way people connect, but their
effects depend on how and for what purpose they use them. It is not clear if the connections made
online can help them forge meaningful bonds. Online and face-to-face interactions need to be
balanced to maintain meaningful relationships – particularly for young children and teenagers and
the effect this could have as they develop their social skills.
In order to fully enhance people’s well-being, digital technologies should be designed and implemented as
to empower individuals:
• Empowerment in a technology-driven environment refers to the process by which individuals gain
greater autonomy and control over their lives, through a more effective use of digital tools and
skills. At its core, it is about being able to make informed decisions and take meaningful actions in
daily lives. It is about ensuring that individuals have the necessary digital skills to leverage these
tools to their fullest potential for their improved well-being.
• In addition, empowerment is also about giving individuals control over their data, by ensuring robust
data privacy protections. Providing them with the appropriate digital tools and skills to master them,
people can also manage more effectively their civic engagement. Such autonomy can enable them
to learn more easily, to access personalized healthcare, and so on, leading to better well-being.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
8 | WISE(2024)8

• Empowered individuals can harness technology to not only improve their well-being but also to
adapt to changing contexts.
The responsible use of digital technologies can help promote democratic values, ethical standards and
human rights; for instance, by:
• First, using digital technologies responsibly implies respecting others' freedom of expression while
avoiding hate speech or discrimination based on sexual orientation, ethnicity, or any other personal
characteristic. Social media platforms, while connecting communities and amplifying voices, can
for example create echo chambers that reinforce biases and spread misinformation.
• Second, involving safeguarding privacy and personal data, recognising that the misuse of
information can infringe on individual rights or ethics.
• Finally, supporting the spread of accurate information and combating misinformation that can harm
public discourse and democratic processes.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
 WISE(2024)8 |9

Box 1.1. Framing well-being in the context of digital technologies

The OECD’s How’s Life in the Digital Age report has examined the impacts of digital technologies on
societal well-being through the OECD Well-Being Framework that the Organisation introduced in 2011
to measure living conditions and societal progress. This is an outcome-focused framework designed to
assess whether life as a whole is getting better for people, the planet and future generations across
OECD Member countries. It includes current well-being outcomes, their distribution across the
population, and the systemic resources that help to sustain outcomes over time and for future
generations (Figure 1).
In the context of OECD’s Going Digital Toolkit and the OECD.AI Policy Observatory, the conceptual
framing starts from the notion that digital technology can offer both negative and positive wellbeing
effects, whereas the outcomes depend on the extent and manner in which individuals use it.
Inappropriate or excessive use can lead to issues like stress, social isolation and information overload,
potentially harming mental and physical health. Thus, the key lies in balancing and optimising technology
usage to maximise its benefits while minimising risks.

Figure 1. Application of the OECD Well-being Framework to digitalisation

The OECD’s How’s Life in the Digital Age report highlighted the following pathways through which digital
technologies interact with people’s well-being:
• Health: Digital technologies can affect people’s health status through the emergence of new
physical and mental health risks and through its impact on the health-care delivery system online
that is affected by new technologies, for instance, the use of electronic records, new treatment
options, telecare and teleconsultation.
• Social Connections: Digital technologies have changed the way people interact with each other,
and the effect of more recent digital technologies on social connections has been widely debated.
When considering the impact of digital technologies in terms of relational well-being, it is important
to understand both the quantity and quality of social connections made online.
• Civic Engagement and Trust: Digital technologies allow new ways for individuals and governments
to express themselves and communicate with each other, receive and disseminate information and
consult public services online. In turn, the Internet has also created new ways for governments to

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
10 | WISE(2024)8

provide services to citizens through online government portals (i.e., e-government or digital
government).
• Personal Safety: Personal safety means being free from harm whether in the form of crime, conflict,
harassment or other challenges posed by the digital transformation for individual well-being, with a
due distinction among data governance, privacy and data protection that are stand-alone factors in
building trust and reducing inequalities (in line with the OECD Privacy Guidelines and a recent report
on Shaping a rights-oriented digital transformation (OECD, 2024[19])).
• Life Satisfaction: Digital transformation impacts people’s purpose of life and state of mind, altering
overall life satisfaction in both positive and negative ways. For instance, addressing technology-
related stress (e.g., difficult access, information technology malfunctions or security breaches) can
help improve mental health, productivity, and life satisfaction.
• Work-Life Balance: Finding a balance between family commitments, leisure and studying or work
can be challenging, particularly with heightened use of digital devices that has blurred the lines
between the time spent outside, versus the time in classrooms or in the workplace. The ability to
connect from anywhere has changed the way people experience time in general as well as the
nature of the relationship between work and home life, and people’s family relations.
• Work and Job Quality: The effect of new technologies may not be directly visible in terms of lost
employment but through changes in the tasks workers perform and changes in job quality. New
technologies can reduce tedious or dangerous tasks but may leave workers with a higher-paced
work environment and improve the workers’ enjoyment at work by allowing them to focus on more
complex and interesting tasks. While AI, for instance, has a potential to support managers’ tasks, it
may affect the job quality of their subordinates with serious ethical challenges and implications for
the workplace inclusiveness. There are many real-world examples of AI-hiring tools that embed
human biases against women, people with disabilities and ethnic or racial minorities.
• Knowledge and Skills: Digital skills are essential for people to reap the benefits of digitalisation
and are necessary to participate in a society that relies increasingly on digital platforms to interact
with other people and institutions. Many social and economic transactions now include some form
of digital components. The digital economy increasingly demands workers who are able to solve
problems in technology-rich environments. Also, digital technologies are transforming the learning
experience, both in schools as well as in adult education, where problem-solving cognitive skills as
well as specialised ICT and complementary skills are needed.
• Environmental Quality: The environmental impact of the digital transformation takes a number of
forms, both positive and negative – including either direct effects (e.g. increased use of digital
technologies refer mostly to the increased use of resources associated with the production and
consumption of digital products or even mining cryptocurrencies) or indirect effects coming from the
improved efficiency and de-materialisation of technological change and digital devices used.
• Connectivity Services and Infrastructures: This is a cross-cutting dimension (i.e., including
communication networks (i.e., including ICT networks, computer systems, devices, programmes
and data) that is necessary for people to access the Internet and participate in the digitalised society
and economy. It is a prerequisite for people to interact with employers, medical services, family,
friends and the society at large in the digital age.

Sources: OECD (2019[6]), How’s Life in the Digital Age? Opportunities and Risks of the Digital Transformation for People’s Well-being, OECD
Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264311800-en; OECD (2020[20]), How’s Life? 2020: Measuring Well-being, OECD Publishing,
Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/23089679; OECD (2023[21]), How to Make Societies Thrive? Coordinating Approaches to Promote Well-being
and Mental Health, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/fc6b9844-en; OECD (2021[22]), Measuring What Matters for Child Well-
being and Policies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/e82fded1-en; Siegerink, Shinwell and Žarnic (2022[23]), Measuring
the non-financial performance of firms through the lens of the OECD Well-being Framework, OECD Papers on Well-being and Inequalities,
No. 03, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/28850c7f-en.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
 WISE(2024)8 | 11

2. Main insights from the literature on the

relationship between digital technologies and
people’s well-being

2.1. Exploring the literature

The approach to the literature review

A wide scan of relevant literature was carried out to gather fresh insights on a selection of well-being
dimensions (i.e., health, social connections, civic engagement, personal safety and subjective well-being)
for which evidence is less well-established. The following criteria were considered. 3
• Concepts analysed: Scientific articles were first identified by using keyword combinations’ search
on Google Scholar database. Keyword combinations for the search included: digital; digital
technologies; digital well-being; digitalisation; social media; teleworking (also referred in the
literature as work-from-home, offsite work or smart-working from home); digital divide, together
with health; mental health; e-healthcare; social connections; loneliness; civic engagement;
mis/disinformation; polarisation; trust; online harassment; digital security, cyberbullying; subjective
well-being; life satisfaction; job satisfaction; work-life balance.
• Time horizon: The review focuses on the studies published after releasing the OECD’s How’s Life
in the Digital Age report (2019[6]), since the primary objective is to provide its update. Nevertheless,
a selection of studies before 2019 with pioneering approaches or an analytical basis for subsequent
research was included in the review.
• Country coverage: By default, the literature scan included a global coverage of the topic, however,
it is somewhat skewed towards studies written in English, partly due to their availability of data from
English-speaking countries (e.g., Australia, Canada, European countries, the United Kingdom, and
the United States).
• Selection of included studies: The selection of articles was based on the relevance to the topic
and the analytical soundness of methodological approaches (see Annex A for the list of selected
articles and their key findings). Over 120 academic articles were selected from peer-reviewed
journals from different fields of science (e.g., digital technology, sociology, psychology,
neuroscience, political science, economics, and public health among others) and had been cited
in peer-reviewed journal at least once since publication. In addition, expert reports and working

3Paré et al. (2015[214]) suggests there can be four different approaches of literature review with distinct goals of
1) summarising knowledge; 2) data aggregation of empirical studies; 3) explanation building; and 4) critical
assessment of literature; whereby this working paper focuses on the first one, which is, summarising knowledge.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
12 | WISE(2024)8

papers from international organisations and public institutions were also included to provide a
broad and extensive narrative of the current state of discussion and policy relevance on the topic.

A broader view on the linkages between digital technologies and well-being

In the literature, the terms digital technologies and digitalisation 4 are generally used to refer to a wide-
range of digital technologies, when analysing their impacts in terms of well-being dimensions. The types
of digital technologies include, but are not limited to, digital devices (e.g., computers, smartphones,
information technology (IT) gadgets), social media, video games, tech-enabled healthcare, Artificial
Intelligence (AI) and Internet of Things (IoT).
Human interaction with digital technologies is characterised in different ways across the reviewed studies,
implying a range of different well-being impacts with respect to how (much) people use them and what
they use them for. Some studies define the relationship between the digital technology and well-being
outcomes by recognising the difference between the “quantity or intensity” and the “quality or active
engagement” of human interactions, while others make no such distinction. “Screen time” is often used as
the mediating variable for studying the relationship between the use of technologies and well-being (Harvey
et al., 2022[24]; Davies et al., 2012[25]), even though it may be an imperfect proxy as, typically, it does not
allow for the separation of active from passive usage of technologies (Tomczyk and Selmanagic Lizde,
2023[26]) and it lumps all activities on line as one homogenous category making the assumption that the
risk (type and intensity) is common across these activities. For instance, watching television can be
described as one-way passive screen time, whereas communicating with others on a digital device (e.g.,
facetiming) is a form of two-way active screen time, and either of the two different types can have distinct
impacts on people’s well-being. In this context, the literature review is organised in a way that looks at how
different types of human interactions and different types of technologies are connected (Table 2.1).

Table 2.1. Analysing the relationship between digital technologies and well-being
Different layers of digital technologies and well-being dimensions included in the literature review 5

Selected well-being
Digital experiences analysed by the studies reviewed in this paper
dimensions
Digital devices (e.g., computers, smartphones, IT gadgets), Internet, social media (SNS), video
Technologies
games, tech-enabled healthcare, Artificial Intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT) etc.
Health, social
Measured as:
connections, civic
engagement, safety,
- In terms of quantity (e.g., intensity subjective well-being,
Human Digital use (e.g., cellphone use, texting), Internet
of use or exposure, availability of work-life balance;
interactions use/access, digital exposure, screen time, social media
access); and Inequalities
use (e.g., time spent on social media, time spent
- In terms of quality (e.g., active or
browsing), AI use, smartphone application use, etc.
passive usage).

4 Digitisation is the conversion of analogue data and processes into a machine-readable format. Digitalisation is the
use of digital technologies and data as well as interconnection that results in new or changes to existing activities.
Digital transformation refers to the economic and societal effects of digitisation and digitalisation (OECD, 2019[216]).
5
Referring to “screen time” without distinguishing for the specific type of online activity may result in inconsistent
conclusions of results, not accounting for concerns and risks that are pertinent to specific activities considered under
the “screen time” term. Besides is relevant to examine the context and content of the “screen time”, rather than just
time spent in front of a screen (Molnar, Ronchi and Barberis, 2020[217]).

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
 WISE(2024)8 | 13

2.2. Digital technologies and health

Digital technologies can improve people’s lives by facilitating online healthcare and prevention
services but some of these opportunities need to be managed with risks, equity considerations
and implementation costs (Digital health | OECD). Digital technologies can enhance access to
healthcare, enable personalised consultations with specialists from thousands of miles away, improve
disease diagnosis and management, as well as facilitate physical health improvements through fitness
apps or technology that allow people to better monitor their health. People with visual, speech or hearing
impediments can access life-changing AI-powered assistive devices, while breakthrough progress is made
in prosthetics and bio-mechatronics to aid mobility. AI systems can also provide tailored support for specific
mental health conditions and cognitive disabilities, among others (OECD, 2023[27]).
When looking at health outcomes, the literature generally considers both digital use (active) and
digital exposure (passive) in relation to health. For instance, the WHO’s guidelines on physical activity
and sedentary behaviour distinguish between the screen time and the screen exposure, 6 and the US
Surgeon General’s Advisory on Social Media and Youth Mental Health warns about some of the risks of
content exposure as well as excessive and problematic use of social media, found to negatively affect
behavioural patterns, particularly of children with negative implications for mental health (e.g., anxiety and
depression). A number of studies also found excessive or problematic (e.g. exposure to screens during
meals) to be negatively correlated with physical health (e.g., with implications for diabetes, obesity and
dry-eye syndrome). The evidence on causal links between the overall digital use and mental health and/or
physical health conditions, however, is still inconclusive (as discussed in subsequent sections).

Digital technologies and mental health 7

There are potential risks from using and being exposed to digital technologies in terms of mental
health conditions that ought to be weighed against the potential benefits. Recent OECD work on
mental health and digital environments (OECD, 2024[28]) examines the rise of negative digital behaviours,
such as cyberbullying and problematic Internet use, and how immersive technologies may worsen these
mental health issues, disproportionately affecting girls. The report discusses three features of digital
environments that help explain potential risks, while considering their potential benefits for mental health.
Anonymity, disembodiment, and disinhibition are considered in the report as key features of digital
environments that can significantly impact mental health (Suler, 2004[29]) (Whitty and Young, 2016[30]).
Anonymity can create a safe space for self-expression and connection, especially for marginalised
individuals, but also carries risks like moral disengagement and increased aggression, including
cyberbullying. Disembodiment allows users to explore identities free from physical constraints, yet it raises
concerns about identity dissociation and distorted body image. Disinhibition, often fuelled by anonymity,
can reduce social restraints, leading to both positive behaviours and harmful actions like trolling and
cyberstalking (OECD, 2024[28]).
Some studies find evidence that heavy use of digital devices is associated with mental health
issues. Active digital use (e.g., cell phone use and texting) were found to be positively correlated with
symptoms of anxiety (Lepp, Barkley and Karpinski, 2014[34]), while time spent using Social Network Service
(SNS) and intensity of SNS use were found to be significantly, but weakly, correlated with depression

6 World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour recommend that one-
year-old infants should not have digital screen exposure, 2-4 years old toddlers should not have more than 1 hour per
day of digital screen exposure, and 5-17 years-old children and adolescents should not exceed 2 hours per day of
recreational screen time (Qu et al., 2023[43]).
7 Mental health is defined by the World Health Organisation (WHO) as “a state of well-being in which the individual

realises his or her abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able
to make a contribution to his or her community” (OECD, 2023[209]).

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
14 | WISE(2024)8

symptoms (Cunningham, Hudson and Harkness, 2021[35]). 8 Analysing administrative data on mental
disorders in Italian hospitals between 2001 and 2013 and availability of high-speed Internet, (Donati
et al.[36]) further found that Internet access is correlated with higher levels of depression and anxiety for
younger cohorts (10-28 year-olds), but not for older individuals. As for social media, a gradual introduction
of Facebook to colleges in the mid-2000s was found to have had a negative impact on students’ mental
health and consequently led to reduced academic performance (Braghieri, Levy and Makarin, 2022[37]).
Similarly, when a screen-use reduction measure was introduced in Denmark for 89 families (with
164 adults) between 2019 and 2021, it resulted in a statistically significant improvement in self-reported
well-being and mood in adults of the intervention group (Pedersen et al., 2022[38]). However, (Vuorre and
Przybylski, 2023[39]) find only small and inconsistent changes in global well-being and mental health in the
last two decades, calling for more research on whether and how much the adoption of Internet and mobile
broadband is consistently linked to negative psychological outcomes.
The COVID-19 pandemic provided an opportunity to gather additional evidence on the relationship
between increased screen time and health. For instance, (Smith et al., 2020[40]) studied 932 adults in
the UK during the pandemic and found a positive correlation between people having symptoms of anxiety
and depression and increased screen time. Lower physical activity and increased screen time during the
pandemic were also found to be correlated with higher levels of depression, loneliness and stress, in a
survey including 3 052 US adults in 2020 (Meyer et al., 2020[41]).
The causal link between the use of digital technology and mental health needs however further
exploration. While a number of studies have indicated some degree of correlation between the exposure
to or use of the digital technology and the mental health issues, the overall causal link is inconclusive and
warrants further research addressing a number of issues, such as potential reverse causality, the lack of
suitable counterfactuals and compounding other factors that affect health conditions besides digital
technology (Davie, 2022[31]). For instance, an increased use of technology may result in poor mental health,
but conversely, those with mental health conditions (such as depression) may be devoting more time to
using digital devices than others (Scherr, Toma and Schuster, 2019[32]). Based on a sample of 25 literature
reviews, (Valkenburg, Meier and Beyens[33]) find no conclusive evidence of positive or negative impacts as
most studies interpreted the causal effects (between social media use and mental health) as weak or
statistically insignificant.

Digital devices and young individuals

The influence of digital devices on mental health and behavioural changes has been subject of a
much-heated debate, particularly concerning children and adolescents. Preschoolers with excessive
screen time showed higher odds of behavioural and conduct problems (Qu et al., 2023[43]), 9 and attention
difficulties (Jourdren, Bucaille and Ropars, 2023[44]). Attention problems, depression, and ADHD scores
were higher in 9- and 10-years old children who spend more than 21 hours per week videogaming,
compared with non-video gamers (Chaarani et al., 2022[45]). A number of studies also find that higher levels
of screen time and social media use among youth were correlated with poor body image, which studies
argued could perpetuate disordered eating behaviours, obsessive social comparisons, and low self-esteem

8 In the survey by (Lepp, Barkley and Karpinski, 2014[34]), participants are asked to indicate how much they are
bothered by that symptom on a 4-point Likert scale from “Not At All” to “Severely” across the representative items that
include “Unable to relax”, “Fear of worst happening”, “Heart pounding/racing”, and “Feeling nervous”. The majority of
studies use self-report measures of depression, which do not allow to include mode of assessment (i.e., self- vs.
clinician-report) as a moderator.
9 (Qu et al., 2023
[43]) have also found that preschoolers with one hour per day of screen time showed significantly lower
risk of intellectual disability, and that children with two or more hours per day of screen time showed significantly lower
odds of intellectual disability.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
 WISE(2024)8 | 15

(Harriger et al., 2022[48]; Ganson et al., 2023[49]; Office of the U.S. Surgeon General, 2023[50]). 10 11 In
relation to behavioural shifts, a study on French middle-school students found that higher screen time by
students can be associated with non-intentional injuries inside and outside of schools that may increase
since the first adolescence year (age 10) over adolescents’ life, associated with elevated screen time
(Chau, Perrin and Chau, 2024[51]). In Canada, 3 826 adolescents were included in a study, which found
that social media use was associated with fighting and conduct problems that depends, among others, on
the type of digital platform through which such content is presented (Wallace et al., 2023[52]). Elevated
screen time (i.e. in excess of 2 hours per day) was also associated with suicidality during high school in
the US, with cyberbullying mediating a substantial proportion of the relationship between the two (Mantey,
Yockey and Springer, 2023[53]). In this context, the US Surgeon General issued an Advisory on Social
Media and Youth Mental Health in 2023, which provides recommendations to make social media safer for
youth (Office of the U.S. Surgeon General, 2023[50]).
Understanding the relationship between digital devices and mental health remains complex. The
effects of social media are dependent on adolescents’ own personal and psychological characteristics and
social circumstances, influence by what youth can do and see online, considering their pre-existing
strengths or vulnerabilities, and the contexts in which they grow up (American Psychological Association,
2023[54]). The effects of online screen time on mental health remain ambiguous: Haidt (2024[47]) claims
that debate on smartphones causing a mental health crisis in teens has been met with criticism from
prominent psychologists who argue there is insufficient empirical evidence supporting unambiguously
negative effects. The research is ongoing to establish causal links between smartphone use and declining
mental health in teens by analysing in more detail the relationship in terms of numbers of hours spent
online and types of activities captured by the “screen time”. (Paulus et al., 2023[42]) argues that social media
effects on behaviour may be small and need more research. When the OECD examined the relationship
between the use of digital devices and academic performance, a moderate use of digital devices was not
found to be intrinsically harmful, but the overuse or misuse of digital devices was negatively associated
with student performance (Box 2.1).

10Teenagers seek “real-time peer affirmation” (e.g. liking a post), which may in turn, pressure them to be connected
24/7 and show intimacy (James et al., 2017[55]), fearing social repercussions otherwise. Social media also increases
social comparison, with users or celebrities portraying themselves as highly connected and influential (Masur,
2021[56])
11 For instance, peer pressure on adolescents via social media can influence eating behaviours (Chung et al.,
2021[57]), and a study on an international sample of 12 031 adolescents found that social media use (e.g. Facebook,
Instagram, Twitter/X/X) was positively associated with weight-change behaviours such as weight gain, weight loss and
dieting (Ganson et al., 2023[49]).

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
16 | WISE(2024)8

Box 2.1. Students’ screen time and distraction in school

The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2022 results examined the relationship
between the use of digital devices by 15-years-old students in school and their performance and sense
of belonging at school across OECD Member countries. The key findings are:
• On average across OECD Member countries, students who spent one to five hours per day on
digital devices for learning at school had 20 (PISA score) points more in mathematics than those
who spent no time on such devices.
• Unless limited in duration, time spent on digital devices for leisure typically correlates with lower
student performance. Students spending over one hour on digital devices for leisure at school
scored more than 9 points lower in mathematics than those who spent no time on digital devices
for leisure, indicating their higher distraction.
• Students spending over one hour on digital devices for leisure at school also reported a lower
sense of belonging at school than those who spent no leisure time on digital devices.
• Allowing students to have a small amount of time to relax and play in online space can actually
help them perform well in school, since the results suggest that students that spent one to
two hours relaxing on their digital devises did better.

Figure 2.1. Students who spent more than one hour daily on various leisure activities online
scored lower in mathematics
Based on 2023 PISA students’ reports; OECD average

Note: Differences between categories are all statistically significant.

Source: OECD (2024[16]), "Managing screen time: How to protect and equip students against distraction", PISA in Focus, No. 124, OECD
Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7c225af4-en.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
 WISE(2024)8 | 17

There are also gender differences in how digital use or social media use can affect mental well-
being. Girls spend more time on smartphones, social media and texting, while boys spend more time
gaming (Twenge and Martin, 2020[58]). The same study, drawing from 221 096 adolescents in the US and
the UK, also led to the conclusion that the correlation between heavy digital media use and low
psychological well-being was more pronounced for girls than boys (Twenge and Martin, 2020[58]). Another
study based on 3 957 adolescents in Sweden found that social media use was highly and positively
correlated with internalizing symptoms, indicative of emotional stressors that are inwardly directed, for girls
but the same association was not found for boys (Svensson, Johnson and Olsson, 2022[59]). On average
across OECD Member countries, cyberbullying is becoming more prevalent and girls are more cyberbullied
than boys: Among OECD Member countries where girls were cyberbullied more than boys, the gap
between cyberbullied girls and boys ranged from almost 1 percentage point in Norway to just over 6
percentage points in France (OECD, 2024[28]).

Digital technologies and physical health

Intensive use of digital devices has been linked to physical health conditions, such as, obesity,
Type-2 diabetes, neck and shoulder strain and dry-eye syndrome. These conditions may also be
attributed to a number of complex and compounding factors such as sedentary behaviour, lack of physical
activity and decrease in the quality of sleep. For instance, high screen time, together with no physical
activity, was found to be correlated with low health-related quality of life, especially in men (Davies et al.,
2012[25]). On the other hand, the system of wireless, interrelated, and connected digital devices (i.e., the
IoT) that can collect, send, and store data over a network promises many benefits for achieving better
physical health by enhancing preventive care and health care delivery to predict health issues and
diagnose, treat, and monitor patients both in and out of the hospital (Kelly et al., 2020[60]).
Increased screen time has also been correlated with increased dietary intake, and with obesity in
children, which could be linked to the exposure of schoolchildren (from 8 to 17 years) to food advertising
and passive food consumption (Pardhan et al., 2022[61]). A study in Poland on 3 127 children found a
negative correlation between screen time and time devoted to physical activities, and between screen time
and exposure to screens during meals (with 89% of children surveyed exposed to screens during meals),
increasing the risk of obesity (Rocka et al., 2022[62]). On the contrary, when 121 children and adolescents
of 10-15 years were studied in Sweden, no link was established between smartphone use and physical
activity levels (Dahlgren et al., 2021[63]).
Intensive use of digital devices can affect eye health. Prolonged and daily use of digital screens, which
influences blink rate and blink completeness, is associated with symptoms of dry eye (DE), such as ocular
discomfort and visual disturbances (Mehra and Galor, 2020[64]; Al-Mohtaseb et al., 2021[65]; Muntz et al.,
2022[66]). Increased screen time is associated with symptoms of digital eye strain, involving both ocular
symptoms as well as non-ocular symptoms such as neck pain, headache and general fatigue (Agarwal
et al., 2022[67]). The results for screen time and myopia or short-sightedness, however, are mixed, and
further studies are needed to assess the relationship between screen time and myopia (Lanca and Saw,
2020[68]).
The effect of digital use on the quality of sleep is inconclusive. A majority of the studies showed that
increased screen time spent was correlated with shorter sleep or poor sleep quality (Christensen et al.,
2016[69]; Echevarria et al., 2023[70]; Cabré-Riera et al., 2019[71]). Blue light, which affects melatonin
production, is found to affect sleep (Gottschalk, 2019[72]). In particular, more screen time was associated
with delayed bedtimes and shorter sleep duration among children and adolescents (Lebourgeois et al.,
2017[73]). A study of 7 849 working young adults (aged 18 to 44 years) found that digital usage delayed
bedtime, but it was not linked to sleep duration (Zhao and Wu, 2022[74]). However, (Garcia et al.[75]) found
no association between screen time and sleep quality or sleep duration when they examined 771 Brazilian
college students during the COVID-19 pandemic, although physically active students demonstrated

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
18 | WISE(2024)8

improved sleep quality compared to physically inactive individuals. A study on a sample of

50 212 American children found that digital screen time, on its own, had little practical effect on paediatric
sleep (Przybylski, 2019[76]).

Technology-enabled online healthcare services

New technologies have helped to advance the provision of online healthcare services. Recognising
the increasing importance of digital health readiness, the OECD has redefined “digital health” based on an
WHO definition as: “The field of knowledge and practice associated with the development and use of health data and digital
technologies to improve health. Digital health expands the concept of eHealth to include digital consumers, with a wider range of
smart devices, connected equipment, and digital therapeutics. It also encompasses other uses of data and digital technologies
for health such as the Internet of things, artificial intelligence, big data and robotics, and predictive and prescriptive analytics.
Analytics can be for health system improvement, public health preparedness, or research and innovation” (OECD, 2023[77]).
Digital technologies have expanded online consultations with medical professionals and provision
of health-related information. 12 Telemedicine (i.e., the provision of remote clinical services) and
teleconsultations with medical staff (i.e., interactions between a clinician and a patient providing diagnostic
or therapeutic advice) have become more frequent and accessible after the COVID-19 pandemic.
Telemedicine has the potential to improve effectiveness, efficiency and equity in health care but despite
its potential benefits, these services still represent a small fraction of all health care activity and spending
(Hashiguchi, 2020[78]). During the pandemic, when the governments moved to lift regulations and to
promote the use of remote care, telemedicine quickly increased: about two in five patients who used remote
care services reported that they prefer telemedicine services to in-person appointments (OECD, 2023[79]).
Digital technologies facilitate access to medical information online and the use of Internet-connected
devices for collecting health-related data, such as heart rate, steps taken and calories burned (OECD,
2023[11]). Clinicians can benefit from digital technologies as well, for instance, generative AI can be used
as a “second opinion” in reviewing images, such as when a radiologist looks at breast cancer images
(Anderson and Sutherland, 2024[80]). In addition, wearable devices, or remote measurement technologies
(RMTs) that carry benefit for screening and monitoring health conditions and improve prevention and
monitoring of chronic diseases (Walsh et al., 2024[81]; OECD, 2023[11]).
Technology enabled health care services have an added value in producing volumes of digitised
health data, which may bring additional value to health systems and enable AI applications in
healthcare. Health data are necessary to improve the quality, safety and patient-centeredness of
healthcare services, support scientific innovation, discover and evaluate new treatments, and redesign and
evaluate new models of health service delivery. The volume of personal health data will continue to grow
with the growth in administration of digital health services, the digital transformation of health systems and
the use of wearables for health management and monitoring. These data are highly beneficial in serving
health-related public interest goals such as improving diagnosis and patient outcomes, detecting unsafe
practices and treatments and identifying high quality and efficient ones, promoting preventive medicine
and personalised medicine and supporting public health management decisions and the efficiency of
health care systems (OECD, 2017[82]). In order to make beneficial use of health data for the public interest,
it is necessary to develop standardised and interoperable data infrastructures of quality, as well as provide
for privacy and security safeguards and controls (OECD, 1980[83]). There are legal, technological and
cultural challenges to overcome in order to achieve a high level of data governance in support of public
interests, as detailed in (OECD, 2022[84]; 2022[85]).

12 Among the key technologies supporting online healthcare and prevention, (Smits et al.
[210]) considers support
platforms, sensor technology, telephone and video-based tools, social media, VR/gaming/audiovisual and
wearable/clothing digital devices.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
 WISE(2024)8 | 19

Digital security and protection of sensitive health-related data are nevertheless pressing issues.
Disruptions in health services by cyberattacks or digital security breaches can pose serious threats to
health, and several countries including Norway (in 2018), Czechia (in 2020), Ireland (in 2021), Canada (in
2021), United Kingdom (in 2022), and Costa Rica (in 2022) have recently been exposed to such attacks
(Sutherland et al., 2023[86]) and understanding limitations of technologies enabling telehealth is key for
effective risk management (Eisner, Berry and Bucci[87]).

2.3. Digital technologies, social connections and loneliness

Digital technologies have changed the way how people interact with each other; in a similar way as
to the arrival of early-age technologies, notably television and the telephone. Recent research is also
looking at the potential of AI and particularly robotics to support therapeutic, palliative and healthcare of
elderly, there are however pending ethical concerns of reducing human contact in population groups that
largely need it (Nature, 2024[88]). To better understand the impact of digital technologies in terms of
relational well-being, both the quantity and quality of social connections need to be considered. The
quantity of social interactions, their quality and diversity of social connections are all relevant in measuring
and understanding the interplay between digital technologies and people’s social connections (OECD,
2020[20]; OECD, 2024[89]). This paper focuses on the impact of digital technologies on the structure (i.e.,
the quantity of social connections), function (i.e., loneliness) and the quality of social connections (i.e.,
whether increased online interactions translate into meaningful bonds) at the individual level rather than
communal or societal levels (Box 2.2).

Box 2.2. Framing and measuring social connectedness: the OECD approach
Taking into account the multidimensionality of social connectedness, the OECD has identified the
following components of social connections to better measure its different effects on various health
and well-being related outcomes:

• Structure encompasses people’s connection to others via the existence of social relationships,
roles and interactions (e.g., time spent with others, type of social contact, network size and
diversity);
• Function aims to capture the actual or perceived support provided by people’s relationships
(e.g., social support, loneliness);
• Quality acknowledges the positive and negative aspects in one’s social relationships (e.g.,
relationship satisfaction, closeness, strain, conflict); and
• Communal and societal connectedness measures capture indicators showing how
individuals relate to one another – and to larger group entities – in the broader societal context.
Source: OECD (2024[89]), “Measuring social connectedness in OECD countries: A scoping review”, OECD Papers on Well-being and
Inequalities, No. 28, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f758bd20-en, adapted from Holt-Lunstad, Robles and Sbara (2017[90]),
“Advancing social connection as a public health priority in the United States”, The American Psychologist, Vol. 72/6, p. 517,
https://doi.org/10.1037/AMP0000103.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
20 | WISE(2024)8

Digital technologies and social connections

Digital technologies have enabled people to connect more frequently and more easily. The quantity
of social interactions has increased significantly with online social interactions (e.g., through emailing,
texting, instant messaging and social networking) and can include everything from mere social attention
(e.g., browsing through other people’s feeds) to deep communication (e.g., having a conversation with
other people) (Meier and Reinecke, 2021[91]). Digital technology has enabled communications regardless
of time and space (Masur, 2021[56]). In particular, social media is in its core, an Internet-based platform that
“connects” users (Di Cara et al., 2022[92]) and provides an “unparalleled opportunity for the exchange and discovery
of information, as well as for instantaneous and seamless connection with people around the world” (Cunningham, Hudson
and Harkness, 2021[35]). However, some studies argue that one cannot equate social media use with
meaningful social interaction, noting that browsing or broadcasting classify as unfocused interaction and
social attention (Hall, 2018[93]; Masur, 2021[56]). 13
The use of social media platforms differs across population groups, for instance, by gender.
Women are overall found to be more frequently using social media than men, however, Instagram and
YouTube showed substantial differences in use patterns across male and female users, with approximately
double the percentage of women using Instagram daily as men and, conversely, approximately double the
percentage of men using YouTube daily as women (Di Cara et al., 2022[92]). In the case of generative AI 14,
the algorithmic response suggestions (“smart replies”) were found to increase both the communication
speed and the use of positive emotional language, despite people’s negative perceptions of AI in
communication, for instance, linked to the lack of transparency about its use (Hohenstein et al., 2023[94]).
Children use digital technologies to stay socially connected. Childhood is marked by stages of rapid
development, including the development of social skills and children may leverage digital technologies
when fulfilling their needs for family, friendship and intimacy. On average across OECD Member countries,
nearly all 15-year-old students have their own smartphone at home, and about 75% spend more than one
hour per weekday browsing social networks (OECD, 2024[16]). The Pew Research Centre surveyed
1 453 US teens in 2023 and found that nearly 1 in 5 teenagers (from 13 to 17 years) are connected through
social media platforms such as YouTube (16% of teens) and TikTok (17% of teens) ‘almost constantly’
(Pew Research Center, 2023[95]). Networked technologies are found to support existing connections and
help establish new connections: for instance, 52 % of teenagers (aged 13 to 17) indicated that social media
“mainly helps” with relationships with friends, and 57% of teenagers have met a new friend online (James
et al., 2017[55]). In the US, teenagers (from 13 to 17 years) reported that social media helps them feel more
accepted (58%), like they have people who can support them through tough times (67%), like they have a
place to show their creative side (71%), and more connected to what’s going on in their friends’ lives (80%)
(Office of the U.S. Surgeon General, 2023[50]).
In some instances, digital technologies can help reinforce existing social interactions online and
offline. For instance, digital technology tends to benefit social relationships for migrants who are away
from their relatives and friends – including by making it easier to participate in native-language educational
and work-related programmes, socialising remotely and transferring money to their relatives (Robeyns,
2020[96]). Digital technology is also used by older adults to maintain relationships affected by barriers of
geographical distance (Al Mahmud et al., 2022[97]). Even video gaming, often stereotyped as isolating

13 (Hall[93]) classifies the use of social media by different types of social behaviour, from social attention (e.g., browsing),
unfocused interaction (e.g., “like”-giving), routine impersonal interaction (e.g., “re-tweeting” or “sharing”), to focused
social interaction (e.g., commenting and chatting) and deep communication (e.g., consulting and advising).
14 Generative AI, among others, can include an array of applications from producing text, images and videos to data

augmentation and generation of synthetic data and analysis. It can facilitate many tasks, such as legal research,
technical support, fixing computer bugs and fielding customer service inquiries (Generative AI – The issues -
OECD.AI).

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
 WISE(2024)8 | 21

technologies, may allow for opportunities for social connections and a sense of community among players
and audiences, especially in the cases of cooperative games and game streaming (i.e., broadcasting one’s
video game play through digital platforms), and a more robust merging on researches on gaming and well-
being is called for (Bowman, Rieger and Tammy Lin, 2022[98]). In Norway, a study on 400 students over
two years found that using Minecraft, a digital multiplayer game which involves constructing different
buildings and figures, can contribute to students’ development of teamwork and collaboration skills
(Andersen and Rustad, 2022[99]). In 2023, the US Surgeon General released an Advisory on Social
Connection, recognising the critical role that connection plays in individual, community, and social health
and well-being. The Advisory calls for reforming digital environments to minimize harms and develop pro-
connection technologies to promote healthy social connections, create safe environments for discourse,
and safeguard the well-being of users (Office of the U.S. Surgeon General, 2023[100]).
The studies are, however, inconclusive on whether online connectedness also forges meaningful
bonds between people. The evidence is so far inconclusive as to whether online connections can
generate benefits or not, for instance, by reinforcing or diminishing offline interactions and meaningful
bonds, and overall positively affecting the lives at individual, family and work levels (Pew Research Centre,
2018[101]). The so-called “displacement hypothesis” suggests that digital communication may replace more
valuable face-to-face communication or stronger ties (Masur, 2021[56]; Suárez Álvarez and Vicente,
2023[102]). Recently, a randomized experiment in the US found that 60 minutes were freed up by
deactivating Facebook for four weeks, and this new free time was then reallocated to offline activities, both
solitary (e.g., solitary TV watching) and social (e.g., spending time with friends and family) (Allcott et al.,
2020[103]).

Digital technologies and loneliness

Digital technology’s impact on loneliness is the subject of the most recent research, but the causal
link between the two is unclear (Luhmann, Buecker and Rüsberg, 2023[104]). Some studies on social
Internet use and loneliness point to a bi-directional and dynamic relationship, as the Internet could be used
to enhance existing relationships and forge new relationships, but some people may use it to escape the
“social pain” of interaction, aggravating loneliness (Nowland, Necka and Cacioppo, 2018[105]). A qualitative
study on loneliness during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK noted the perceived inferiority of digital social
interaction relative to in-person meetings (McKenna-Plumley et al., 2021[106]). In another US-based study,
participants who reported using social media for more than two hours a day had about double the odds of
reporting increased perceptions of social isolation compared to those who used social media for less than
30 minutes per day (Primack, 2017[107]).
There are differences in the relationship between digital use and loneliness according to age
groups. A study in Australia based on an online survey of 979 men found that loneliness is a determinant
of time spent on social media, for younger men only (Seidler et al., 2022[108]). The authors found a positive
relationship between loneliness and time on social media for those men in the young and middle-aged
groups. Another study explored the linkages between Internet/email use and loneliness for a sample of
4 492 older English adults (aged 50+): those using Internet/email less than once every three months were
significantly more likely to be socially isolated than every day users (Stockwell et al., 2021[109]).
Recent studies are focused on the technology-based approaches to reduce loneliness. (Ramo and
Lim[110]) asserts that smartphone applications can be useful in addressing loneliness, especially for digital
native young people (from 18 to 25 years), if they are engaging enough to interest them but at the same
time can nudge young people out in the real world. For instance, a pilot smartphone application, +Connect,
was tested for 6 weeks with 10 young people with early psychosis in Australia. It was found to be feasible
and acceptable intervention to target loneliness, with no qualitative negative outcomes (Lim et al.,
2020[111]). For older adults, several studies have reported that digital technology interventions are effective
in reducing loneliness, but a meta-analysis by (Shah et al., 2019[112]) of six studies found no statistically

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
22 | WISE(2024)8

significant reduction in loneliness. Drawing on three case studies in Canada and Australia to explore
technology-based interventions among frail older people (aged 65+), (Barbosa Neves, Waycott and
Maddox[113]) found that technologies such as communication apps also came with negative unintended
consequences; termed as “increasing awareness of loneliness rather than its alleviation”.
Different age groups have different expectations and needs from connecting socially online. A
qualitative study was implemented in the UK to understand older adults’ (aged 50+) experiences with using
digital technologies considering their social connectivity, and to use that understanding in app designs. It
revealed that older adults desired app functionalities that can support mutual activities, maintain and forge
new connections, but were less interested in sharing their emotional well-being (Stuart et al., 2023[114]). (Al
Mahmud et al.[97]) also teamed up with older adults in Australia to develop a prototype of communication
tool, ElderConnect. Participants were able to present six key recommendations for developing web-based
interventions for older adults: tone (e.g., avoid using negative terminologies such as loneliness), relatability,
accessibility, readability, engagement and trustworthiness of the site. In addition, (Boucher et al.[115])
argues that because the subjective nature of loneliness, interventions to tackle it need to be flexible and
individualized.

2.4. Digital technologies, civic engagement and trust

Digital technologies have transformed the way civic engagement works (i.e., defined by UNICEF as
“individual or collective actions in which people participate to improve the well-being of communities or society in general” (Cho,
Byrne and Pelter, 2020[116]). Digital technologies enable different and novel ways for individuals and
governments to participate, express themselves and communicate with each other, receive and
disseminate information and consult public services online. The Internet has also created new ways for
governments to provide services to citizens through e-government and digital government platforms. On
the other hand, there is an increasing risk of mis/disinformation that could influence civic engagement, and
the herding of like-minded people online which can lead to political polarisation through algorithms that
drive content shown.

Digital technologies and civic engagement

Whether Internet use may expand civic engagement or not is being debated. From one standpoint,
Internet use is considered to displace off-line social contact and civic engagement activities, while another
standpoint considers Internet use as a means for retrieving additional information and forging social
connections that enable civic engagement (Erhardt and Freitag, 2021[117]). From the latter point of view,
(Boulianne, 2020[118]) argues on the basis of meta-analysis of 300 studies that there is a positive
relationship between digital media use and offline participation in civic and political life, with the effect
becoming more pronounced in recent years. (Erhardt and Freitag[117]) examined the relationship between
civic engagement and several types of Internet use and activities by using two panel surveys, the Dutch
LISS Panel (i.e., the Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social Sciences gathering 31 308 observations
from respondents via online questionnaires) and the SHP (i.e., the Swiss Household Panel gathering
17 948 observations from Swiss citizens mainly via telephone interviews). They found a robust positive
effect of social Internet use for information (in the form of writing emails) on civic engagement (i.e.,
becoming or remaining active in an organisation), but not for other Internet activities (e.g., passive use of
Internet for entertainment).
People are more likely to engage politically offline (i.e., attend public meetings) when they are more
politically engaged on social media; as indicated by another study using data from the 2016 Cooperative
Congressional Election Study (CCES) on 64 400 US adults. It finds a 2-percentage point increase in level
of political engagement offline with additional levels of engagement on social media (Piatak and Mikkelsen,
2021[119]). In addition, in the run up to the 2020 US presidential election, one of the largest-scale

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
 WISE(2024)8 | 23

randomized experiment so far (with 19 857 Facebook users and 15 585 Instagram users) showed that
deactivation of Facebook and Instagram reduced the index of political participation, while also reducing
knowledge of general news and possibly belief in mis- and dis-information (Allcott et al., 2024[120]). The
authors, however, could not find any statistically significant effects of social media on voter turnout or
political polarisation.
Several studies have highlighted the role of digital technologies in the civic engagement of youth.
Between 43 and 64 percent of 9 to 17-year-olds in 11 countries (Albania, Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile,
Ghana, Italy, Montenegro, the Philippines, South Africa and Uruguay) were shown to look for news online,
with 12 to 27 percent discussing political problems online (Cho, Byrne and Pelter, 2020[116]). Online political
activities of youth have specific characteristics of being interactive and often-peer-based, and often do not
fall under institutional or elite guidance (Lee, White and Dong, 2021[121]). A recent study which uses survey
data on 1 224 American youths found that one’s social media capital (measured by Facebook friends,
Twitter/X/X followers and Twitter/X/X following) is positively correlated with participation in political, non-
political and charitable organisations (Lee, 2022[122]). Digital media has empowered today’s youth,
particularly those traditionally marginalised, to be more actively engaged politically, developing social
stances and creating political content online. A study based on 23 minority teens in the US showed that
these teens, equipped with digital skills used in their social lives, are more actively seeking, sharing and
using information for political activity (Kaskazi and Kitzie, 2023[123]). A qualitative study on 20 young people
(aged 16-21) in the US also found that youth with historically marginalised identities use social media to
be civically engaged, by Restorying (e.g., telling their personal stories), Building Community, (e.g.,
establishing community bonds for sharing ideas and getting help) and Taking Collective Action (e.g.,
organising to collaborate in taking actions for the benefit of community) (Wilf and Wray-Lake, 2021[124]).
Countries have made significant progress in strengthening the governance of digital government
and improving user-experience, as shown by the OECD Digital Government Index (OECD, 2024[125]).
Ensuring that services meet users’ needs and expectations remains a primary objective for governments,
but these are not always reflected in concrete practices. OECD (2024[125]) results show that governments
need to strengthen policy levers to implement the user-driven approach in practice. Less than 50% have
formal requirements or government-wide initiatives to employ digital government tools to engage citizens
and businesses in co-designing services. Additionally, only 29% of countries mandate user testing for
digital government services. Facilitating the user-experience with online government sites also requires
progress on ensuring the data are being used effectively by anticipating user needs and providing proactive
services online.

Digital technologies and mis- and dis-information

The spread of mis- and dis-information poses risks to the well-being of people and society, and
can contribute to polarisation, jeopardise the implementation of policies, and undermine trust in
democratic institutions and processes (Disinformation and misinformation | OECD). Given there is no
universally accepted typology, the OECD developed a set of definitions to help streamline the international
discourse on false and misleading online. False, inaccurate, and misleading information can vary based
on context, source, intent, and purpose, making it essential to distinguish between types for better policy
design and measurement (Lesher, Pawelec and Desai, 2022[126]). Key terms include disinformation, which
is intentionally false and harmful; misinformation, which is unintentionally shared falsehoods; contextual
deception, which manipulates truth for a misleading narrative; propaganda, often used to shape opinions
emotionally rather than informatively; and satire, where humour may blur intent when shared. These
categories are framed along axes of intent to harm and fabrication. (Acemoglu, 2021[127]), for instance,
argue that misinformation can proliferate in echo chambers and filter bubbles, where users are more likely
to share content aligning with their beliefs, further amplifying the spread.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
24 | WISE(2024)8

There is a considerable level of mistrust in online information, with pronounced differences among
countries from one to more than two thirds of the total population reporting to see doubtful
information online. The OECD Truth Quest (OECD, 2024[128]) reveals that confidence in identifying false
content online is not correlated with actual ability, as both confident and non-confident respondents
identified such content correctly 60% of the time. Satire was the easiest false content to detect, while
misinformation and true content were more challenging. AI-generated content was generally easier to
identify correctly than human-generated content. Additionally, those with positive perceptions of AI were
better at recognising AI-labelled content's accuracy. Social media, despite being a popular news source,
is the least trusted, and higher reliance on it correlates with lower accuracy in identifying true and false
content. By examining how misinformation spreads, its consequences, and the existing evidence on the
impact of false content, the OECD Going Digital Toolkit (Lesher, Pawelec and Desai, 2022[126]) highlights
the importance of access to accurate information online and introduces a new typology of online untruths.
New sets of skills, including digital literacy, are necessary to establish trust based on people’s
ability to verify the credibility of online content and information sources. The verification and fact-
checking features on social media platforms could help minimize the traffic of mis- and dis-information
(Olan et al., 2024[129]), but the ability to sort fact from fiction, and to recognise mis- and dis-information, is
essential for information consumers in the digital age (Breakstone et al., 2022[130]). A regression analysis
on 2 584 Korean adolescents found a positive relationship between three components of digital literacy
(i.e., information usage, communication and creation) with civic engagement (i.e., expressing opinions
about social issues, volunteering, donating) (Moon and Bai, 2020[131]). Caution is needed when interpreting
the causality of this relationship, given that the study could not determine whether news consumption is
the cause or consequence of media literacy and to what extent it is related to the news-reading. For
instance, only one-in-five adults get news through social media in the US (Pew Research Center, 2018[132]).
Critical digital literacy, referring to both the ability to evaluate online content and the knowledge of the
potential benefits and limitations of Internet for civic life, can facilitate civic engagement (Polizzi, 2023[133]).
A study including 263 college students in the US evaluated online sources about public policy issues. It
found that most students were not effectively discerning the credibility of a given website (Breakstone et al.,
2022[130]).
Intense polarisation is arguably another type of risk attributed to the use of digital technologies,
although evidence of an associated link is inconclusive. Polarisation can be understood as the
“distance” between two extreme positions (Esau et al., 2023[134]), and can be manifested by attitudes (e.g.,
toward issues), beliefs (e.g., about certain issues) and behaviours (e.g., verbal expression, political
choices) (Yarchi, Baden and Kligler-Vilenchik, 2020[135]). While people have more access to divergent
ideas in the digital environment, some of them may seek to actively ignore or stick with inter-group
conversations (Esau et al., 2023[134]), which can be polarising political discourse. For instance, (Lang,
Erickson and Jing-Schmidt[136]) collected a total of 412 959 stance-taking hashtags about mask wearing
by Twitter/X/X users in the US during the COVID-19 pandemic. Their findings showed a complex picture
of digital polarisation on mask wearing, presenting semantic antagonism between pro- (93.6%) and anti-
mask (6.4%) hashtags. Their findings (Lang, Erickson and Jing-Schmidt[136]) suggest an asymmetric
participatory polarisation, referred to as an “echo chamber effect” of the dominant pro-mask group that
ignored the rhetoric of the anti-mask minority.
Polarisation of discussion online can peak around major political events. A study analysed 5.1 billion
comments made over 14 years on Reddit (Waller and Anderson, 2021[137]). Tracking the distribution of
political activity from 2012 to 2018, the authors found the polarisation of discussion (measured with the
mean absolute value partisan z-score of political comments) to be peaking around the 2016 US presidential
election. This overall shift in polarisation on the platform in 2016 was entirely driven by the activity of the
new users from right-wing communities. Furthermore, polarisation can take different forms depending on
the type of social media platform but may depend on the geo-political context. In general, a study using
Dutch panel data found no evidence that social media contributed to the level of affective polarisation, but

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
 WISE(2024)8 | 25

it showed that the level of affective polarisation can affect the use of social media (Nordbrandt, 2023[138]).
In a specific case concerning the political situation in Israel, (Yarchi, Baden and Kligler-Vilenchik[135]) found
the presence of polarisation on Twitter/X/X, but the results were more ambiguous on WhatsApp and
Facebook – based on a rich dataset including a quarter million online comments over 16 months.
Efforts are underway to boost trust in digital technologies, notably in Artificial Intelligence (AI). For
example, international organisations are increasingly focused on improving the trustworthiness of AI. The
OECD AI Principles, adopted in 2019, guide AI actors in their efforts to promote trustworthy AI that respects
human rights and democratic values, and provide policymakers with recommendations for effective AI
policies (OECD/LEGAL/0449). The Recommendation was updated in May 2024 in response to recent
developments in AI technologies, notably the emergence of general-purpose and generative AI. The
Recommendation promotes five principles that apply to all AI actors: the pursuit of beneficial outcomes for
people and the planet; human-centric values and fairness; transparency and explainability; robustness,
security, and safety; and accountability. Furthermore, the OECD published “Tools for Trustworthy AI: A
framework to compare implementation tools for trustworthy AI systems” in 2021, in which technical,
procedural and educational tools for trustworthy AI were classified according to the Principles (OECD,
2021[139]). Other international organisations have also taken steps to promote trustworthy AI and advance
international AI governance. The UN, for instance, established a new Advisory Body in 2023 that includes
39 experts with the aim to harness AI for the common good, and for its recommendations to feed into the
preparation for the UN Summit of the Future in 2024 (UN, 2023[140]).

Digital technologies and personal safety

Concerns about personal safety 15 online are important, however, should be viewed separately from
digital security issues. 16 As digital technologies advance, concerns about digital security are growing,
including the protection of privacy and personal data, maintaining online resilience, and safeguarding
against cyber breaches and attacks that threaten the availability, integrity, or confidentiality of data,
systems, and networks. Such cybersecurity incidents undermine people's sense of security and reduce
their trust in online communication and Internet-based services. To address these challenges, the (OECD,
2024[141]) report proposes a checklist for measuring cybersecurity risks and introduces innovative methods,
such as leveraging news reports and Google Trends data, to complement existing statistics. These tools
aim to anticipate emerging cybersecurity trends, develop targeted cybersecurity awareness programs, and
promote a more secure and resilient digital ecosystem.
As for personal safety, online harassment via the Internet and other electronic communication
devices, is prevalent and growing. A three-year survey with 50 000 participants across 22 countries was
conducted to estimate the prevalence and growth of online harassment. An average of 48% of participants
reported experiencing some form of hate or harassment. For the 12 countries with data from both 2016
and 2018, participants reporting hate and harassment online grew from 45% to 49% (Thomas et al.,
2021[142]). Another survey in 2020 found that 41% of American adults have experienced some form of
online harassment, of which around half responded that they were harassed because of their political views
(Pew Research Center, 2021[143]). Literature also indicates that some demographic subgroups, such as
young women, LGBTQIA+, children and adolescents, and minorities are more exposed to online harms
than others.

15 Safety involves being free from harm, whether from crime, conflict, harassment, or natural disasters (OECD,

2020[20]).
16OECD Policy Framework on Digital Security defines digital security as a set of measures taken to manage digital
security risk for economic and social prosperity (OECD, 2022[218]).

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
26 | WISE(2024)8

Women perceive greater harm from online harassment. An online survey with nearly 4 000 participants
across 14 regions around the world was conducted to understand the perception of harm associated with
online harassment, and how respondents would like platforms to respond to it (Im et al., 2022[144]). Results
showed that women perceive greater harm associated with online harassment than men, especially for
non-consensual image sharing. As for the platform’s desired response, women more than men preferred
removing content and banning users from the site. In another study, in-depth interviews with 23 women
(aged 18-24) were conducted to explore the impact of online harassment on college-age women. Its
findings confirmed previous academic research that experiences of harassment are common online for
young women, but it also found that the vast majority accepted online harassment as inevitable and
adopted self-censoring strategies (Chadha et al., 2020[145]). Moreover, female journalists and activists are
easy targets of online harassment (often with offline implications), because of their profession which
require transparency about their identity and often involves covering stories of injustice (Goyal, Park and
Vasserman, 2022[146]; Lewis, Zamith and Coddington, 2020[147]). When UNESCO and the International
Centre for Journalists (ICFJ) conducted a global survey about online violence against women journalists
in 2020, 73% of 714 respondents said that they had experienced online violence (Posetti et al., 2020[148]).
People from sexual and gender minorities are at high risk for online harassment. A study based on
a survey about experiences of technology-facilitated sexual violence showed that transgender participants
(66.7%) were more like to report “having experienced someone spreading rumours or lies about them”
than female (13.3%) or male (16.7%) participants; and 60% of transgender participants reported “having
experienced someone posting offensive and/or offensive messages about their gender” (Powell, Scott and
Henry, 2020[149]).
Children and adolescents are more susceptible to cyberbullying and online harassment; including
from accessing unsafe material and entering into communication with unknown persons that may lead to
grooming or radicalisation (Gottschalk, 2019[72]). A systematic review of 63 studies found that the
cyberbullying victimization rate, of which verbal violence was the most common type, increased
significantly in the observed period of 2015-2019 for adolescents and children (Zhu et al., 2021[150]). Based
on the US sample of 1 152 adolescents (between 10 to 18 years), (Copp, Mumford and Taylor[151]) found
that approximately 37% of adolescents reported being victims of cyberbullying, with nearly 15%
experiencing online sexual harassment. Female adolescents are more likely to experience online sexual
harassment than their male peers, whereby online sexual harassment was also correlated with negative
mood (i.e., depression and anxiety symptoms) especially for those with low levels of resilience; in the study
including 277 female Croatian adolescents (on average 15.8 years old) over a 26-month period (Mitchell
and Štulhofer, 2021[152]).

2.5. Digital technologies and other dimensions of people’s well-being

Digital technologies and subjective well-being

How digital technologies impact subjective well-being, including life satisfaction, affect and
eudaimonia (i.e., a sense of meaning and purpose in life), has become an increasingly researched
topic in recent years. Seventy-two articles published after 2019 were found when the keywords of digital
and subjective wellbeing were searched on Scopus database. Subjective well-being is defined in the
OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being, as “good mental states, including all of the various
evaluations, positive and negative, that people make of their lives and the affective reactions of people to their experiences”
(OECD, 2013[153]). This definition groups subjective well-being in three broad categories of life evaluation

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
 WISE(2024)8 | 27

(e.g., life satisfaction, domain satisfaction), affect (e.g., feelings, emotions or states), and eudaimonia (i.e.,
psychological flourishing) (OECD, 2013[153]). 17
The link between the use of digital technologies and subjective well-being is ambiguous and
depends on the way the technology is used. Several studies have investigated the relationship between
digital use (e.g., by Internet use, social media use and screen time) and subjective well-being, life
satisfaction or negative feelings. For instance, a study using the European Social Survey (ESS) data for
Spain (for 2016 and 2018), explored the link between people’s life satisfaction and Internet use (daily use
of Internet), and found that those who use the Internet more intensively report lower life satisfaction and
happiness than those who use it to a lesser extent. The findings of the same study, however, indicate that
people who use the Internet more intensely have more people to discuss intimate matters with and engage
more in social activities (Suárez Álvarez and Vicente, 2023[102]). Another study on digital inclusion in New
Zealand found that adults and adolescents who do not have Internet access tend to have lower levels of
subjective well-being, but once daily Internet use for 15-years old teens exceeds about two hours, there is
no positive correlation between the Internet use and subjective well-being (Grimes and White, 2019[154]).
As for social media use, (Bailey et al., 2020[155]) analysed the data of 10 560 Facebook users in order to
determine whether authentic self-expression (i.e., by looking at the number of Facebook “likes” and “status
updates”) is associated with greater life satisfaction. Its findings show that there is a positive correlation
between the two, suggesting that users who engage in self-expression on social media enjoy psychological
benefits of being authentic. In addition, a study using two UK datasets with 84 011 participants (of 10-
80 years of age) highlighted how the relationship between the estimated social media use and life
satisfaction varies by age. The findings showed a negative correlation between self-reported estimates of
social media use and life satisfaction, most notably amongst young adolescents (of 10-15 years of age)
(Orben et al., 2022[156]). Finally, a study of 1 540 children in Chile showed that the excessive screen time
(i.e., of two or more hours per day) was found to be correlated with negative feelings among children,
independent of the level of their physical activity (García-Hermoso et al., 2020[157]).
The link between the use of digital technologies and eudaimonia are unclear. The literature exploring
the relationship between digital technologies and people’s sense of purpose, meaning and psychological
flourishing is relatively scarce. (Meier and Reinecke[158]) reviewed studies that looked at the relationship
between social media and eudaimonia, distinguishing between passive and active use or regardless of
both types. Their literature review notes that the evidence is too limited and inconsistent to make any
conclusions about the systematic effects of social media on eudaimonia. Another literature review of
82 publications, focused on eudaimonic game entertainment experiences (Daneels et al., 2021[159]),
showed that “digital game appreciation was often and closely connected to meaningful, emotionally moving or challenging, and
self-reflective experiences”.

Digital technologies and job satisfaction

Addressing technostress can help improve workplace satisfaction. Technostress can be defined as
negative effect on human attitudes, thoughts, behaviour, and psychology which can directly or indirectly
result from technology use (Tu, Wang and Shu, 2005[160]). It is found to include physiological and emotional
arousal that can affect job satisfaction at the individual level as well as at the organisational level via
employee commitment and performance (e.g., turnover, absenteeism) (Atanasoff and Venable, 2017[161]).
Techno-stressors (i.e., the causes of technostress) include system breakdown (e.g., IT malfunctions),
usability issues (e.g., system learnability), security issues (e.g., unauthorised access), accessibility (i.e.,
ease of access to communication technologies, leading to communication overload), and techno-

17
Similarly, (Büchi, 2021[2]) refers to subjective well-being as “happiness in terms of pleasure and satisfaction”, with the
latter including “purpose, positive relationships and functioning in social groups”. It further goes on to characterize
digital well-being in terms of individual’s affect, domain satisfaction (e.g., satisfaction about one’s job) and overall life
satisfaction in a society abundant with digital use options.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
28 | WISE(2024)8

uncertainty (i.e., where constant changing of technology causes anxiety) (Nisafani, Kiely and Mahony,
2020[162]). For instance, ease of digital communication has increased the volume of email messages at
work as well as the variety in the messages (from advertisements to important information), but
unnecessary communication only hinders concentration on tasks and workflow interruptions (Bordi et al.,
2018[163]). Both explicit and implicit expectations of constant connectivity can also undermine well-being at
work (Bordi et al., 2018[163]). In addition to putting in place measures to help cope with technostress at
work, respecting boundaries between work and personal time can be beneficial for worker’s mental health
by reducing psychosocial stressors (ILO-WHO, 2022[164]).

Digital technologies and work-life balance

Digital technologies have created opportunities to work and communicate remotely, affecting
people’s work-life balance in both positive and negative ways. On the one hand, digital technologies
have boosted flexibility at work in terms of place, time, and means of communication. They help to improve
people’s well-being in personal and professional domains. People have more flexibility in time
management and can save time spent on commuting, while at the same time benefiting from public
services. A survey of employees from seven OECD Member countries in 2022 showed that the presence
of teleworking policies was associated with higher level of work satisfaction among workers; 79% of
teleworkers who were consulted about teleworking were satisfied with their work-life balance, and 67% of
full-time teleworkers responded that teleworking improves trust at work (OECD, 2023[165]). On the other
hand, teleworking settings may be unsuitable with regards to the occupational and health standards of
traditional worksites, and may affect physical health of workers, resulting in musculoskeletal disorders, eye
strain and injures (ILO-WHO, 2022[164]). It is also difficult to respect work-life balance when there are young
children or other family members around, with workers burdened by family duties during working hours
(ILO-WHO, 2022[164]).

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
 WISE(2024)8 | 29

3. Digital divides and well-being

People with different characteristics (i.e., in terms of skills, gender, income, geographic location,
education, age, ethnicity, and disability) may face unequal access to or quality of connectivity and
may draw uneven benefits from digital technologies. Some of these divides can interact and
compound, creating vicious circles that may deepen existing inequalities (OECD, 2020[166]). Bridging these
divides is a policy priority in many OECD Member countries, both for the public and the private sector, to
promote equitable access to connectivity services and infrastructure and ensure equal participation in the
digital economy and society (OECD, 2022[167]) (see also Box 3.2). Reliable, high-quality connectivity is
essential for digital transformation, yet disparities persist, deepening digital divides. Along these lines,
(OECD, 2021[7]) report offers a roadmap for policymakers, highlighting effective policies and regulations –
such as promoting competition, fostering investment, and addressing rural connectivity needs – to ensure
inclusive access for all and prevent today’s divides to perpetuate into the future (e.g., by addressing harmful
content and setting up a measurement agenda to underpin a collective understanding of progress).
In the literature, the term digital divide has been often characterised by disparities in access to,
usage and outcomes of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) (Lythreatis, Singh and
El-Kassar, 2022[168]), as well as the availability of skills to use these new digital tools (Kerras et al.,
2020[169]). In the initial stages of digitalisation from the 1990s to early 2000s, the term mostly referred to
the gap between individuals who could or could not access the ICT, which can either result from personal
choices and behaviour or is beyond an individual’s control due to factors like socioeconomic status or
location. The characterisation of the digital divide has gradually expanded to capture how and for what the
ICT is being used (Song, Qian and Pickard, 2021[170]), and whether or not greater connectivity is driving
progress and contributing meaningfully to people’s lives (Lembani et al., 2020[171]). 18
Digital inequalities, or digital divides, operate across different levels (Gottschalk and Weise, 2023[172]). The
first-level digital divide refers to unequal access to digital technologies. In recent years, this gap has
narrowed in many OECD Member countries (Burns and Gottschalk, 2019[173]), with broadband
subscriptions surpassing population numbers by 2017 (OECD, 2019[174]). By 2018, most students in these
countries had home Internet access. Divides in Internet use are also pronounced by age, education and
income, with younger and more educated Internet users engaging in a wider range of online activities
(OECD, 2018[8]). Challenges persist, however, with inequalities within and between countries. The digital
divide particularly affects vulnerable segments of the population, for example, low-income and rural
households (OECD, 2024[18]). Focusing on the latter, (OECD, 2018[8]) examines recent policy and
technology approaches to bridging the digital divide in rural and remote areas in OECD Member countries.
It reviews technological developments that are likely to influence the provision of services in underserved
areas, for instance, in rural areas and among socio-economically disadvantaged groups like Roma
students (Garmendia and Karrera, 2019[175]).
The second-level digital divide involves differences in digital skills, uses, and motivations. Young
people are not a homogeneous group in their use of digital technologies, with data showing disparities

18 For example, the Australian Digital Inclusion Index (ADII), published in 2020 for the fifth time, provides analysis of

digital inclusion in Australia by measuring three key dimensions: access, affordability and digital ability (Thomas et al.,
2020[211]).

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
30 | WISE(2024)8

across socio-economic lines (OECD, 2019[174]). PISA 2018 data indicates that advantaged students are
more likely to use the Internet for career or education information and perform better in computer skills
than disadvantaged peers. This divide particularly affects students from lower socio-economic or immigrant
backgrounds, who often lack digital tools and support networks. In disadvantaged settings, parents may
have low digital skills, further hindering children's ability to develop necessary digital competencies (Burns
and Gottschalk, 2019[173]).
The third-level digital divide concerns differences in offline outcomes, like material or social
benefits, linked to digital technology use. Failure to fully utilize digital opportunities can exacerbate
existing inequalities (Van Deursen and Helsper, 2015[176]). To achieve tangible benefits in education, work,
health, or other areas, individuals need the necessary resources and skills (Gottschalk and Weise,
2023[172]).

3.1. Skills Divide

Lack of familiarity with digital technologies may affect people’s ability to use online services and
unlock opportunities. It has been observed that older people and those with lower levels of education
and income are less sophisticated users of digital technologies (OECD, 2017[177]). This reduces their
access to useful information online, e.g., healthcare. For instance, older people and those with low
educational attainment use the Internet less than the rest of the population to seek information on their
health (OECD, 2023[178]) and other online public services, leaving them with lesser access to social
benefits. This difference in familiarity can spill into the labour market, where those with more familiarity with
a wider range of technologies may gain a competitive edge over those with less exposure to technology.
In addition, AI is highly prevalent in recruitment and hiring platforms, but under-presented groups can be
unfairly disadvantaged due to potential biases or use impeding their entry into the labour markets (OECD,
2020[179]).
Highly-educated individuals can benefit more from digital technologies than lower-educated
individuals. Individuals with higher education and adequate digital skills can take greater advantage of
teleworking or working remotely than less-skilled working in more manual jobs (see Box 3.1). In
EU countries, nearly half the AI workforce has labour earnings in the top two deciles of the labour earnings
distribution, which is higher than for the employed population with a tertiary degree in these countries
(OECD, 2023[12]). A study based on the recent survey data in 35 European countries revealed that the
earnings of self-employed individuals who adopted ICT at work are higher than those not using ICT at work
at all (Millán et al., 2021[180]). In the UK, (Gallego, Kurer and Schöll[181]) also found a strong positive
relationship between increased levels of digital technologies’ use in an industry and the hourly net wages
of workers with higher education levels, especially university degrees. Another study on 1 323 university
students in France showed that the acquisition of digital skills increases students’ academic performance
(Youssef, Dahmani and Ragni, 2022[182]). Higher-educated individuals are among those most likely taking
advantage of online services in their regular day-to-day activities (Elena-Bucea et al., 2021[183]).

Box 3.1. Can virtual work arrangements improve the opportunities for disadvantaged groups?
• While digital technologies can dissolve the geographic barriers that once existed in education
and labour markets, there are still concerns as to whether this will boost opportunities for
disadvantaged groups. This is particularly relevant when it comes to the increased availability
of flexible working arrangements, such as remote or occasional teleworking opportunities,
which was particularly highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
 WISE(2024)8 | 31

o The pandemic increased the availability of flexible working arrangements, enabled by new
technologies. However, research suggests that these positions are usually open to high-
skilled individuals with higher levels of education. Given that high-skilled individuals were
already shown to be more mobile when it comes to selecting job locations (OECD, 2020[166]),
the benefits reaped by high-skilled individuals will continue to compound.
o For example, a study by the Joint Research Centre (JRC) examined the extent of hybrid
work in EU countries and estimated that 37% of place-dependent employment in the EU is
currently hybrid work, that is, the share of employment in occupations which workers could
technically perform remotely. However, there were stark differences in hybrid work between
high- and low-paid workers and white- and blue-collar workers, with the expansion of
telework since the COVID-19 pandemic strongly skewed towards high-paid white-collar
workers (Sostero et al., 2020[184]).
• In digital platforms, workers have been found to be relatively young and often performing their
work during atypical hours. While digital platform employment may have increased efficiency of
the matching process in the labour market, it has also raised inequality concerns related to job
and income security, access to social protection, career development, training and protection
against discrimination and opaque management practices (OECD/ILO/European Union,
2023[13]).

3.2. Socio-economic divide

Lower digital literacy among low-income groups has been shown to undermine their effective use
of online support systems, such as, telehealth and Fin-tech (i.e., digital financial services). For instance,
in New York City during the COVID-19 pandemic, people from socially vulnerable communities faced
significant barriers to telehealth services, and used telephone more often than video consultations, with
the ratio of using telephone consultations in these communities (41.7%) higher than those in less socially
vulnerable communities (23.8%) (Chang et al., 2021[185]). A study of 2 940 patients conducted in the US
during the COVID-19 pandemic also showed that low-income, female and black population groups were
less likely than others to use telehealth services (Eberly et al., 2020[186]). Moreover, (Nam and Lee[187])
found a disproportionate concentration of Fin-tech services usage among higher-income individuals, based
on the 2019 Digital Divide Survey in Korea.
Youth from lower socio-economic upbringings often struggle to acquire adequate digital skills. A
study using data on 18 882 15-year-old students from seven countries (Chile, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Italy and South Korea) found evidence of a digital divide by the socio-economic status, migration
background and gender. Among key drivers for a digital divide during the COVID-19 pandemic are the ICT
skills of students, which the study found to be strongly related to students’ socioeconomic background. It
also found that those of a higher socioeconomic standing used ICT more in the school than their peers
from disadvantaged backgrounds (Van de Werfhorst, Kessenich and Geven, 2022[188]).

3.3. Age, gender and accessibility divides

• Age divide: The elderly may not be able to benefit as much from new technologies as
younger generations. Unequal access and use of SNS both across generations and within the
old-age population (i.e. more than 65 years old) may perpetuate social inequalities, leading to older
people’s social exclusion and limiting the opportunities that SNS use may offer (Sala, Gaia and
Cerati, 2022[189]). For instance, a study on 28 EU Member States also showed that SNS adoption
is affected by individual’s age, with the Baby Boomers showing significantly lower adoption levels

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
32 | WISE(2024)8

for e-Services and Social Networks (Elena-Bucea et al., 2021[183]). Having less digital skills, or
having negative perceptions of ageing were highlighted as some of the factors aggravating the
digital divide for the elderly population (Martins Van Jaarsveld, 2020[190]; Choi et al., 2020[191]). On
the other hand, younger generations are becoming “digital natives”, having grown up with their
lives structured around ubiquitous digital technologies (Youssef, Dahmani and Ragni, 2022[182]). A
recent study in Norway, for instance, showed that the awareness of algorithms (i.e, as whether the
algorithm is being used to present recommendations, advertisements, and other content on the
internet) was high among the youth but it was the lowest among elderly (Gran, Booth and Bucher,
2021[192]).
• Gender divide: In the European Union (EU), the gender-specific use of the Internet is relatively
balanced: 78% of women (versus 80% of men) are Internet daily users, 31% of women (versus
36% of men) have “above basic digital skills” (more specifically, 71% for information skills, 67% for
communication skills, 56% for problem-solving skills, and 39% for software skills). 19 This gap may,
however, be more pronounced in other parts of the worlds where women are less likely to use
smartphones than men (Perifanou and Economides, 2020[193]). A study based on a survey of
10 000 women and men in Colombia, Ghana, Indonesia and Uganda found that men were 21%
more likely to be online than women. There was also a hidden digital gender divide: for instance in
Colombia, there was a 1% gender gap in basic access to communication services but when it came
to the meaningful connectivity gap (taking into account speeds, data allowance, device type and
regular access), the gender gap increased to 17% (World Wide Web Foundation, 2020[194]). Higher
employment rates for men could also explain between a quarter and a half of the observed gender
gap in the Internet use in Latin America (i.e., in Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico and Peru covered by
the research study), ahead of other predictors of use such as age, education and income (Galperin
and Arcidiacono, 2021[195]). A qualitative study based on interviews with 32 women in Spain found
that because women are active both in the labour market and in the household as unpaid workers,
it could influence their availability to develop adequate digital skills for responsible Internet use
(Arroyo, 2020[196]). In addition, women sometimes reported that teleworking increased work-life
balance inequalities in the home during the pandemic, as they were expected to carry out regular
domestic tasks while working remotely at the same time (Touzet, 2023[197]).
• Disability divide: Limitations placed on people with disabilities to use digital services may
amplify existing social inequalities. For instance, individuals with visual impairments may face
difficulties using QR (quick response) codes to enter certain facilities or purchase goods online.
Deaf students may face difficulties in using e-Education system without subtitles or sign language
translation (Cho and Kim, 2022[198]). A study in the US which examined 139 of the most popular
health websites found that 91.3% of the sample had detectable accessibility failures (Mason,
Compton and Bhati, 2021[199]), with low contrast failures and missing alternative text (i.e. the text
read by screen readers for people with visual impairments) among the most prevalent accessibility
failures (Mason, Compton and Bhati, 2021[199]). Another study in Sweden examined 771 persons
with cognitive disabilities, and suggests that most people with cognitive disabilities are lagging
behind the general population in terms of access to devices, online shopping, online banking and
also feel less included in the digital society (Johansson, Gulliksen and Gustavsson, 2021[200]). They
found that 44% of women with aphasia do not feel included in the digital society, while it was 5%
for the general Swedish women.

19 The study shows that in the past three months of participating in the EU survey, 63.1% of women used the Internet

to do online banking; 13,1% of women used the Internet for participating in social or professional networks; 8.08% of
women used the Internet for doing an online course (on any subject); 0.94% of women participated in on-line civic
consultations or voting (e.g. urban planning, signing a petition); and 0.637% of women sent filled forms to public
authorities over the internet, during the last year.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
 WISE(2024)8 | 33

3.4. Geographical and political divide

• Geographical divide: The persistent lack of adequate broadband access in rural and remote
areas hampers equitable digital participation and economic opportunities (OECD, 2018[8]). In the
US for instance, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) launched the Digital
Opportunities Data Collection mapping project, as a response to the rural-urban digital divide and
to identify broadband coverage gaps in rural areas (Eruchalu et al., 2021[201]). In addition to the
attention on the urban/rural digital divide, the importance of narrowing the digital gap within urban
areas is increasingly being highlighted. A study in the US showed that investments in broadband
infrastructure during the 2014-2018 period favoured affluent areas in Los Angeles County over low-
income and minority communities (Galperin, Le and Wyatt, 2021[202]). A case study in San Antonio
in the US, also showed that controlling for all other factors such as income, gender, age, and
education, the digital divide in broadband access depended on where you lived in the city (Reddick
et al., 2020[203]). There is also the issue of affordability of digital access, as low-income households
may not be able to connect to digital facilities, even if the physical broadband infrastructure is widely
available in urban areas (Koch, 2022[204]).
• Political divide: The people left behind in the digital age are exposed to economic and social
grievances, which may have broad political implications. For example, digitalization can create
economic losers who are more likely to vote against the political status quo, but it also creates
winners with distinct preferences who support the status quo and can even take over some existing
political parties (Gallego and Kurer, 2022[205]). A study using 82 countries for the year 2016 showed
that if the business sector’s digital adoption is high, it is more likely for the leading political party to
adopt populist rhetoric (Güvercin, 2022[206]). However, another study using panel data from the UK
from 1997 and 2017 showed that ordinary winners of digitalisation (i.e. neither left-behind in
digitalisation nor successful technology entrepreneurs) provide some stabilizing force by
supporting the centre-right mainstream or the incumbent party (Gallego, Kurer and Schöll,
2022[181]). It should be noted, however, the issue of political divide stemming from digital
technologies is largely complex and has been approached by researchers from many different
angles. One such study by (Petrova, Sen and Yildirim, 2021[207]) implies that there can be
intensified political competition after social media adoption (i.e. Twitter/X), which lowers costs of
disseminating information to their constituents for new entrants.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
34 | WISE(2024)8

Box 3.2. Accelerating digital transformation and closing the gap: Example of Cisco’s CDA
Cisco’s Country Digital Acceleration (CDA) program presents an example of efforts in the private sector
to close the digital gap. It supports modernization of digital infrastructure and training of digital workforce
in more than 50 countries, by teaming up with governments, industry and academia. Examples of the
implementation programs include:
• Healthcare: Medibus is the mobile clinic which provides primary care, company medical
examinations, telehealth consultations, video translation services, and vaccination campaigns.
It was created by the partnership of Cisco, Deutsche Bahn, VDL Bus & Coach, and A+
Videoclinic GmbH in Germany to reach those who lack access to proper healthcare.
• Smart communities: El Paso Helps is an online portal which connects community members in
crisis (e.g., those experiencing homelessness) to immediate live help 24/7 in Texas in the US It
is designed to assist vulnerable populations with vital services such as street outreach, shelter,
food, COVID-19 assistance, housing and mental health.
• Education: Cisco teamed up with the National Library of South Africa to launch National Library
learning hubs that provide access in disadvantaged communities for them to be connected to
the Internet. Librarians in nine South African provinces were also trained to improve IT skills.
• Cybersecurity: In 2022, DreamPort cyber lab was built on Zero Trust principles at US Cyber
Command’s DreamPort facility in Maryland. Its goal is to support closing the cyber skills gap by
expanding the Maryland Innovation and Security Institute (MISI)’s Industrial Control
Systems/Operational Technology (ICS/OT) workforce training, academic engagement, and
cybersecurity test, evaluation and cyber exercise capabilities.
Source: CISCO (2023[208]), Country Digital Acceleration program, https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/about/country-digital-acceleration.html.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
 WISE(2024)8 | 35

References

Acemoglu, D. (2021), “Misinformation: Strategic sharing, homophily, and endogenous echo [127]

chambers”, NBER Working Papers No. 28884, http://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w28884.

Agarwal, R. et al. (2022), “Effect of increased screen time on eyes during COVID-19 pandemic”, [67]

Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, Vol. 11/7, p. 3642,

https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_2219_21.

Al Mahmud, A. et al. (2022), “Developing A Digital Psychoeducational Tool to Reduce Loneliness [97]
in Older Adults: A Design Case Study”, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction,
Vol. 38/6, pp. 499-528, https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1949854.

Allcott, H. et al. (2020), “The Welfare Effects of Social Media”, American Economic Review, [103]
Vol. 110/3, pp. 629-676, https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20190658.

Allcott, H. et al. (2024), “The effects of Facebook and Instagram on the 2020 election: A [120]
deactivation experiment”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 121,
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2321584121.

Al-Mohtaseb, Z. et al. (2021), “The relationship between dry eye disease and digital screen use”, [65]
Clinical Ophthalmology, pp. 3811-3820, https://doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S321591.

American Psychological Association (2023), Health Advisory on Social Media, [54]

https://www.apa.org/topics/social-media-internet/health-advisory-adolescent-social-media-
use.pdf.

Andersen, R. and M. Rustad (2022), “Using Minecraft as an educational tool for supporting [99]
collaboration as a 21st century skill”, Computers and Education Open, Vol. 3, p. 100094,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100094.

Anderson, B. and E. Sutherland (2024), “Collective action for responsible AI in health”, OECD [80]
Artificial Intelligence Papers, No. 10, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/f2050177-en.

Arroyo, L. (2020), “Implications of digital inclusion: Digitalization in terms of time use from a [196]
gender perspective”, Social Inclusion, Vol. 8/2, pp. 180-189,
https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v8i2.2546.

Atanasoff, L. and M. Venable (2017), “Technostress: Implications for Adults in the Workforce”, [161]

Career Development Quarterly, Vol. 65/4, pp. 326-338, https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12111.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
36 | WISE(2024)8

Bailey, E. et al. (2020), “Authentic self-expression on social media is associated with greater [155]
subjective well-being”, Nature Communications, Vol. 11/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-
020-18539-w.

Baptista, J. and A. Gradim (2020), Understanding fake news consumption: A review, MDPI AG, [212]
https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci9100185.

Barbosa Neves, B., J. Waycott and A. Maddox (2023), “When Technologies are Not Enough: [113]
The Challenges of Digital Interventions to Address Loneliness in Later Life”, Sociological
Research Online, Vol. 28/1, pp. 150-170, https://doi.org/10.1177/13607804211029298.

Bordi, L. et al. (2018), “Communication in the Digital Work Environment: Implications for [163]

Wellbeing at Work”, Nordic journal of working life studies, https://tidsskrift.dk/njwls/index.

Boucher, E. et al. (2021), “The impact of a digital intervention (Happify) on loneliness during [115]
COVID-19: Qualitative focus group”, JMIR Mental Health, Vol. 8/2,
https://doi.org/10.2196/26617.

Boulianne, S. (2020), “Twenty Years of Digital Media Effects on Civic and Political Participation”, [118]

Communication Research, Vol. 47/7, pp. 947-966,

https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218808186.

Bowman, N., D. Rieger and J. Tammy Lin (2022), “Social video gaming and well-being”, Current [98]
Opinion in Psychology, Vol. 45, p. 101316, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101316.

Braghieri, L., R. Levy and A. Makarin (2022), “Social Media and Mental Health”, American [37]
Economic Review, Vol. 112/11, pp. 3660-3693, https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20211218.

Breakstone, J. et al. (2022), “Civic Preparation for the Digital Age: How College Students [130]
Evaluate Online Sources About Social and Political Issues”, Journal of Higher Education,
Vol. 93/7, pp. 963-988, https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2022.2082783.

Büchi, M. (2021), “Digital well-being theory and research”, New Media and Society, [2]
https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211056851.

Burns, T. and F. Gottschalk (2019), Education in the Digital Age: Healthy and Happy, OECD [173]

Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/1209166a-en.

Burr, C. and L. Floridi (2020), “The Ethics of Digital Well-Being: A Multidisciplinary Perspective”, [219]
in Philosophical Studies Series, Ethics of Digital Well-Being, Springer International
Publishing, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50585-1_1.

Cabré-Riera, A. et al. (2019), “Telecommunication devices use, screen time and sleep in [71]
adolescents”, Environmental Research, Vol. 171, pp. 341-347,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.10.036.

Chaarani, B. et al. (2022), “Association of Video Gaming with Cognitive Performance among [45]
Children”, JAMA Network Open, p. E2235721,
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.35721.

Chadha, K. et al. (2020), “Women’s Responses to Online Harassment”, International Journal of [145]
Communication, Vol. 14/19, pp. 239-257, https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/11683.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
 WISE(2024)8 | 37

Chang, J. et al. (2021), “Rapid Transition to Telehealth and the Digital Divide: Implications for [185]
Primary Care Access and Equity in a Post-COVID Era”, Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 99/2, pp. 340-
368, https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12509.

Chau, K., P. Perrin and N. Chau (2024), “Associations between excessive screen time and [51]
school and out-of-school injuries among adolescents: A population-based study”, Psychiatry
Research, Vol. 331, p. 115679, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2023.115679.

Cho, A., J. Byrne and Z. Pelter (2020), “Digital civic engagement by young people”, UNICEF [116]
Office of Global Insight and Policy, https://www.unicef.org/media/72436/file/Digital-civic-
engagement-by-young-people-2020_4.pdf.

Cho, M. and K. Kim (2022), “Effect of digital divide on people with disabilities during the COVID- [198]
19 pandemic”, Disability and Health Journal, Vol. 15/1,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2021.101214.

Christensen, M. et al. (2016), “Direct measurements of smartphone screen-time: Relationships [69]

with demographics and sleep”, PLoS ONE, Vol. 11/11,
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165331.

Chung, A. et al. (2021), “Adolescent Peer Influence on Eating Behaviors via Social Media: [57]
Scoping Review”, Journal of Medical Internet Research, Vol. 23/6, p. e19697,
https://doi.org/10.2196/19697.

Cisco (2023), Country Digital Acceleration program, [208]

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/about/country-digital-acceleration.html.

Copp, J., E. Mumford and B. Taylor (2021), “Online sexual harassment and cyberbullying in a [151]
nationally representative sample of teens: Prevalence, predictors, and consequences”,
Journal of Adolescence, Vol. 93, pp. 202-211,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2021.10.003.

Cunningham, S., C. Hudson and K. Harkness (2021), “Social Media and Depression Symptoms: [35]
a Meta-Analysis”, Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, pp. 241-253,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-020-00715-7.

Dahlgren, A. et al. (2021), “Screen time and physical activity in children and adolescents aged [63]
10–15 years”, PLoS ONE, Vol. 16/7 July, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254255.

Daneels, R. et al. (2021), “The ‘eudaimonic experience’: A scoping review of the concept in [159]
digital games research”, Media and Communication, Vol. 9/2, pp. 178-190,
https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v9i2.3824.

Davie, M. (2022), “Screen time: how much is too much?”, Paediatrics and Child Health, [31]

Vol. 32/8, https://theatlas.com/charts/H1v_p6N6b.

Davies, C. et al. (2012), “Associations of physical activity and screen-time on health related [25]

quality of life in adults”, Preventive Medicine, Vol. 55/1, pp. 46-49,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.05.003.

Davis, T. (2024), Digital Well-Being: Definition, Apps, and Strategies, Berkeley Well-being [5]

Institute, https://www.berkeleywellbeing.com/digital-well-being.html (accessed on

13 March 2024).

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
38 | WISE(2024)8

Di Cara, N. et al. (2022), “The mental health and well-being profile of young adults using social [92]
media”, npj Mental Health Research, Vol. 1/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s44184-022-00011-w.

Donati, D. et al. (2022), “Lost in the Net? Broadband Internet and Youth Mental Health”, SSRN [36]
Electronic Journal, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3949645.

Eberly, L. et al. (2020), “Telemedicine Outpatient Cardiovascular Care During the COVID-19 [186]
Pandemic”, Circulation, Vol. 142/5, pp. 510-512,
https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.120.048185.

Echevarria, P. et al. (2023), “Screen use and sleep duration and quality at 15 years old: Cohort [70]
study”, Sleep Medicine: X, Vol. 5, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleepx.2023.100073.

Economic Commission for Europe (2020), “In-depth review of measuring well-being in the era of [4]
the “digital society”: implications for official statistics, Note by Statistics Canada”, Conference
for European Statisticians.

Eisner, E., N. Berry and S. Bucci (2023), “Digital tools to support mental health: a survey study in [87]
psychosis”, BMC Psychiatry, Vol. 23/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-023-05114-y.

Elena-Bucea, A. et al. (2021), “Assessing the Role of Age, Education, Gender and Income on [183]
the Digital Divide: Evidence for the European Union”, Information Systems Frontiers,
Vol. 23/4, pp. 1007-1021, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10012-9.

Erhardt, J. and M. Freitag (2021), “The Janus-Face of Digitalization: The Relation Between [117]
Internet Use and Civic Engagement Reconsidered”, Social Science Computer Review,
Vol. 39/3, pp. 315-334, https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319861966.

Eruchalu, C. et al. (2021), The Expanding Digital Divide: Digital Health Access Inequities during [201]
the COVID-19 Pandemic in New York City, Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-020-
00508-9.

Esau, K. et al. (2023), Destructive Political Polarization in the Context of Digital Communication- [134]
A Critical Literature Review and Conceptual Framework, https://eprints.qut.edu.au/238775/.

Gallego, A. and T. Kurer (2022), “Automation, Digitalization, and Artificial Intelligence in the [205]

Workplace: Implications for Political Behavior”, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-

051120.

Gallego, A., T. Kurer and N. Schöll (2022), “Neither Left Behind nor Superstar: Ordinary Winners [181]

of Digitalization at the Ballot Box”, Journal of Politics, Vol. 84/1, pp. 418-436,
https://doi.org/10.1086/714920.

Galperin, H. and M. Arcidiacono (2021), “Employment and the gender digital divide in Latin [195]

America: A decomposition analysis”, Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 45/7,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2021.102166.

Galperin, H., T. Le and K. Wyatt (2021), “Who gets access to fast broadband? Evidence from [202]

Los Angeles County”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 38/3,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101594.

Ganson, K. et al. (2023), “Screen time, social media use, and weight-change behaviors: Results [49]

from an international sample of adolescents”, Preventive Medicine, Vol. 168,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2023.107450.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
 WISE(2024)8 | 39

García-Hermoso, A. et al. (2020), “Physical activity, screen time and subjective well-being [157]
among children”, International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, Vol. 20/2, pp. 126-
134, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2020.03.001.

Garcia, M. et al. (2024), “Sleep duration and quality during the COVID-19 pandemic and the [75]
association with physical activity and screen time among Brazilian college students”,
American Journal of Human Biology, https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.24035.

Garmendia, M. and I. Karrera (2019), “ICT Use and Digital Inclusion among Roma/Gitano”, [175]
Media and Communication, Vol. 7/1, https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v7i1.1624.

Gottschalk, F. (2019), Impacts of technology use on children: exploring literature on the brain, [72]
cognition and well-being, OECD Education Working Paper No. 195,
http://www.oecd.org/edu/workingpapers.

Gottschalk, F. and C. Weise (2023), “Digital equity and inclusion in education: An overview of [172]
practice and policy in OECD countries”, OECD Education Working Papers, OECD Publishing,
Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7cb15030-en.

Goyal, N., L. Park and L. Vasserman (2022), “”You have to prove the threat is real”: [146]
Understanding the needs of Female Journalists and Activists to Document and Report Online
Harassment”, CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517517.

Gran, A., P. Booth and T. Bucher (2021), “To be or not to be algorithm aware: a question of a [192]
new digital divide?”, Information Communication and Society, Vol. 24/12, pp. 1779-1796,
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1736124.

Granic, I. (2014), “The Benefits of Playing Video Games”, American Psychologist, Vol. 69 (No.1), [46]
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034857.

Grimes, A. and D. White (2019), “Digital inclusion and wellbeing in New Zealand”, Motu [154]
Economic and Public Policy Research, https://doi.org/doi.org/10.29310/WP.2019.17.

Gui, M., M. Fasoli and R. Carradore (2017), “Digital well-being. Developing a new theoretical tool [3]

for media literacy research”, Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 9/1, pp. 155-173,
https://doi.org/10.14658/pupj-ijse-2017-1-8.

Güvercin, D. (2022), “Digitalization and populism: Cross-country evidence”, Technology in [206]

Society, Vol. 68, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101802.

Hall, J. (2018), “When is social media use social interaction? Defining mediated social [93]
interaction”, New Media and Society, Vol. 20/1, pp. 162-179,
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816660782.

Harriger, J. et al. (2022), “The dangers of the rabbit hole: Reflections on social media as a portal [48]
into a distorted world of edited bodies and eating disorder risk and the role of algorithms”,
Body Image, Vol. 41, pp. 292-297, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2022.03.007.

Harvey, D. et al. (2022), “International trends in screen-based behaviours from 2012 to 2019”, [24]
Preventive Medicine, Vol. 154, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106909.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
40 | WISE(2024)8

Hashiguchi, O. (2020), “Bringing health care to the patient: An overview of the use of [78]
telemedicine in OECD countries”, OECD Health Working Papers, Vol. No. 116/OECD
Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/8e56ede7-en.

Hatem, L. and D. Ker (2021), Measuring well-being in the digital age, OECD Going Digital Toolkit [9]
Notes, https://doi.org/10.1787/1891bb63-en.

Hohenstein, J. et al. (2023), “Artificial intelligence in communication impacts language and social [94]

relationships”, Scientific Reports, Vol. 13/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-30938-9.

Holt-Lunstad, R. (2017), “Advancing social connection as a public health priority in the United [90]
States”, The American Psychologist, Vol. 72/6, p. 517, https://doi.org/10.1037/AMP0000103.

House, P. (ed.) (2024), The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is [47]
Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness, https://www.vox.com/24127431/smartphones-young-
kids-children-parenting-social-media-teen-mental-health.

ILO-WHO (2022), Healthy and safe telework: Technical brief, [164]

https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240040977 (accessed on 1 March 2023).

Im, J. et al. (2022), “Women’s Perspectives on Harm and Justice after Online Harassment”, [144]
Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 6/2 CSCW,
https://doi.org/10.1145/3555775.

James, C. et al. (2017), “Digital Life and Youth Well-being, Social Connectedness, Empathy, and [55]
Narcissism”, Pediatrics, Vol. 140/Supplement_2, pp. S71-S75,
https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-1758f.

Johansson, S., J. Gulliksen and C. Gustavsson (2021), “Disability digital divide: the use of the [200]
internet, smartphones, computers and tablets among people with disabilities in Sweden”,
Universal Access in the Information Society, Vol. 20/1, pp. 105-120,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-020-00714-x.

Jourdren, M., A. Bucaille and J. Ropars (2023), “The Impact of Screen Exposure on Attention [44]
Abilities in Young Children: A Systematic Review”, Pediatric Neurology, pp. 76-88,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2023.01.005.

Kaskazi, A. and V. Kitzie (2023), “Engagement at the margins: Investigating how marginalized [123]
teens use digital media for political participation”, New Media and Society, Vol. 25/1, pp. 72-
94, https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211009460.

Kelly, J. et al. (2020), “The Internet of Things: Impact and Implications for Health Care Delivery”, [60]
Journal of Medical Internet Research, Vol. Vol. 22/11, http://10.2196/20135.

Kerras, H. et al. (2020), “The impact of the gender digital divide on sustainable development: [169]
Comparative analysis between the european union and the maghreb”, Sustainability
(Switzerland), Vol. 12/8, https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12083347.

Koch, K. (2022), “The Territorial and Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Digital Divide in [204]
Canada”, Canadian Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 45/2, pp. 89-98,
https://doi.org/10.7202/1092248ar.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
 WISE(2024)8 | 41

Lanca, C. and S. Saw (2020), “The association between digital screen time and myopia: A [68]
systematic review”, Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, pp. 216-229,
https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.12657.

Lang, J., W. Erickson and Z. Jing-Schmidt (2021), “#MaskOn! #MaskOff! Digital polarization of [136]
mask-wearing in the United States during COVID-19”, PLoS ONE, Vol. 16/4 April,
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250817.

Lebourgeois, M. et al. (2017), “Digital Media and Sleep in Childhood and Adolescence”, [73]
Pediatrics, Vol. 140.Supplement_2, http://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article-
pdf/140/Supplement_2/S92/908113/peds_20161758j.pdf.

Lee, C., G. White and D. Dong (eds.) (2021), Educating for Civic Reasoning and Discourse, [121]
National Academy of Education, https://doi.org/10.31094/2021/2.

Lee, Y. (2022), “Social media capital and civic engagement: Does type of connection matter?”, [122]
International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Vol. 19/1, pp. 167-189,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-021-00300-8.

Lembani, R. et al. (2020), “The same course, different access: the digital divide between urban [171]
and rural distance education students in South Africa”, Journal of Geography in Higher
Education, Vol. 44/1, pp. 70-84, https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2019.1694876.

Lepp, A., J. Barkley and A. Karpinski (2014), “The relationship between cell phone use, [34]
academic performance, anxiety, and Satisfaction with Life in college students”, Computers in
Human Behavior, Vol. 31/1, pp. 343-350, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.049.

Lesher, M., H. Pawelec and A. Desai (2022), “Disentangling untruths online: Creators, spreaders [126]
and how to stop them”, OECD Going Digital Toolkit Notes, Vol. No. 23/OECD Publishing,
Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/84b62df1-en.

Lewis, S., R. Zamith and M. Coddington (2020), “Online Harassment and Its Implications for the [147]
Journalist–Audience Relationship”, Digital Journalism, Vol. 8/8, pp. 1047-1067,
https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1811743.

Lim, M. et al. (2020), “A pilot digital intervention targeting loneliness in young people with [111]
psychosis”, Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, Vol. 55/7, pp. 877-889,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-019-01681-2.

Luhmann, M., S. Buecker and M. Rüsberg (2023), “Loneliness across time and space”, Nature [104]
Reviews Psychology, pp. 9-23, https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00124-1.

Lythreatis, S., S. Singh and A. El-Kassar (2022), “The digital divide: A review and future research [168]

agenda”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 175,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121359.

Mantey, D., R. Yockey and A. Springer (2023), “Digital screen time and suicidality during high [53]

school: How important is cyberbullying? A mediation analysis using the youth risk behavioral
surveillance survey, 2011–2019”, Preventive Medicine, Vol. 166,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107330.

Martins Van Jaarsveld, G. (2020), “The Effects of COVID-19 Among the Elderly Population: A [190]
Case for Closing the Digital Divide”, Frontiers in Psychiatry, Vol. 11,
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.577427.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
42 | WISE(2024)8

Mason, A., J. Compton and S. Bhati (2021), “Disabilities and the Digital Divide: Assessing Web [199]
Accessibility, Readability, and Mobility of Popular Health Websites”, Journal of Health
Communication, Vol. 26/10, pp. 667-674, https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2021.1987591.

Masur, P. (2021), “Digital Communication Effects on Loneliness and Life Satisfaction”, in Oxford [56]
Research Encyclopedia of Communication, Oxford University Press,
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.1129.

McKenna-Plumley, P. et al. (2021), “Connection, constraint, and coping: A qualitative study of [106]
experiences of loneliness during the COVID-19 lockdown in the UK”, PLoS ONE, Vol. 16/10
October, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0258344.

Meeks, S. (ed.) (2020), “Does Perceived Ageism Widen the Digital Divide? And Does It Vary by [191]
Gender?”, The Gerontologist, Vol. 60/7, pp. 1213-1223,
https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnaa066.

Mehra, D. and A. Galor (2020), “Digital screen use and dry eye: A review”, Asia-Pacific Journal [64]
of Ophthalmology, pp. 491-497, https://doi.org/10.1097/APO.0000000000000328.

Meier, A. and L. Reinecke (2021), “Computer-Mediated Communication, Social Media, and [91]
Mental Health: A Conceptual and Empirical Meta-Review”, Communciation Research,
Vol. 48.8, pp. 1182-1209, https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650220958224.

Meier, A. and L. Reinecke (n.d.), “Social Media and Mental Health: Reviewing Effects on [158]
Eudaimonic Well-Being”, in Emotions in the digital world: Exploring affective experience and
expression in online interactions, Oxford Univ. Press., https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/xvts8.

Meyer, J. et al. (2020), “Changes in physical activity and sedentary behavior in response to [41]
covid-19 and their associations with mental health in 3052 us adults”, International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 17/18, pp. 1-13,
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17186469.

Millán, J. et al. (2021), “‘Digital divide’ among European entrepreneurs: Which types benefit most [180]
from ICT implementation?”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 125, pp. 533-547,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.034.

Mitchell, K. and A. Štulhofer (2021), “Online sexual harassment and negative mood in Croatian [152]
female adolescents”, European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 30/2, pp. 225-231,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-020-01506-7.

Molnar, A., E. Ronchi and M. Barberis (2020), “Review of the 2012 Recommendation of the [217]
OECD Council on the Protection of Children Online - Second Consultation of the Informal
Group of Experts”, Working Party on Data Governance and Privacy in the Digital Economy,
Vol. DSTI/CDEP/DGP(2020)9/JT03463138,
https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0389.

Moon, S. and S. Bai (2020), “Components of digital literacy as predictors of youth civic [131]
engagement and the role of social media news attention: the case of Korea”, Journal of
Children and Media, Vol. 14/4, pp. 458-474, https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2020.1728700.

Muntz, A. et al. (2022), “Extended screen time and dry eye in youth”, Contact Lens and Anterior [66]
Eye, Vol. 45/5, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2021.101541.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
 WISE(2024)8 | 43

Nam, Y. and S. Lee (2023), “Behind the growth of FinTech in South Korea: Digital divide in the [187]
use of digital financial services”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 81,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2023.101995.

Nature (2024), Robotics and artificial intelligence: Intelligent machines could shape the future of [88]
science and society, The Nature Outlook, https://www.nature.com/immersive/robotics-
ai/index.html.

Nisafani, A., G. Kiely and C. Mahony (2020), “Workers’ technostress: a review of its causes, [162]
strains, inhibitors, and impacts”, Journal of Decision Systems, Vol. 29/sup1, pp. 243-258,
https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2020.1796286.

Nordbrandt, M. (2023), “Affective polarization in the digital age: Testing the direction of the [138]
relationship between social media and users’ feelings for out-group parties”, New Media and
Society, Vol. 25/12, pp. 3392-3411, https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211044393.

Nowland, R., E. Necka and J. Cacioppo (2018), “Loneliness and Social Internet Use: Pathways [105]
to Reconnection in a Digital World?”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 13/1,
pp. 70-87, https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617713052.

OECD (2024), “2023 OECD Digital Government Index: Results and key findings”, OECD Public [125]
Governance Policy Papers, No. 44, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/1a89ed5e-en.

OECD (2024), “Managing screen time: How to protect and equip students against distraction”, [16]
PISA in Focus, No. 124, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7c225af4-en.

OECD (2024), “Measuring social connectedness in OECD countries – A scoping review”, OECD [89]
Papers on Well-being and Inequalities, Vol. No. 28, https://doi.org/10.1787/f758bd20-en.

OECD (2024), “New perspectives on measuring cybersecurity”, OECD Digital Economy Papers,, [141]

Vol. No. 366/OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b1e31997-en.

OECD (2024), OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2024 (Volume 1): Embracing the Technology [18]
Frontier, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a1689dc5-en.

OECD (2024), “Shaping a rights-oriented digital transformation”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, [19]
Vol. No. 368/OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/86ee84e2-en.

OECD (2024), “Spotlight. Mental health and digital environments”, OECD Digital Economy [28]
Outlook 2024 (Volume 1): Embracing the Technology Frontier OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/a1689dc5-en.

OECD (2024), “The OECD Truth Quest Survey: Methodology and findings”, OECD Digital [128]
Economy Papers, Vol. No. 369/OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/92a94c0f-en.

OECD (2023), Health at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, [77]
https://doi.org/10.1787/7a7afb35-en.

OECD (2023), How to Make Societies Thrive? Coordinating Approaches to Promote Well-being [21]
and Mental Health, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/fc6b9844-en.

OECD (2023), Measuring Population Mental Health, OECD Publishing, Paris, [209]

https://doi.org/10.1787/5171eef8-en.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
44 | WISE(2024)8

OECD (2023), Measuring the Internet of Things, OECD Publishing, Paris, [11]
https://doi.org/10.1787/021333b7-en.

OECD (2023), OECD Employment Outlook 2023: Artificial Intelligence and the Labour Market, [12]

OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/08785bba-en.

OECD (2023), OECD Skills Outlook 2023: Skills for a Resilient Green and Digital Transition, [14]
OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/27452f29-en.

OECD (2023), OECD Telecommunications and Internet Statistics, https://doi.org/10.1787/tel_int- [178]

data-en.

OECD (2023), Shaping Digital Education: Enabling Factors for Quality, Equity and Efficiency, [15]

OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bac4dc9f-en.

OECD (2023), “Teleworking, workplace policies and trust: A critical relationship in the hybrid [165]
world of work”, https://www.oecd.org/employment/Teleworking-workplace-policies-and-
trust.pdf?utm_campaign=ELS%20Newsletter%20April%202023&utm_content=teleworking-
trust&utm_term=els&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Adestra (accessed on 25 April 2023).

OECD (2023), The COVID-19 Pandemic and the Future of Telemedicine, OECD Health Policy [79]
Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ac8b0a27-en.

OECD (2023), “Using AI to support people with disability in the labour market: Opportunities and [27]

challenges”, OECD Artificial Intelligence Papers, Vol. No. 7/OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/008b32b7-en.

OECD (2022), “Building better societies through digital policy: Background paper for the CDEP [167]

Ministerial meeting”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, Vol. No. 338/OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/07c3eb90-en.

OECD (2022), Health Data Governance for the Digital Age: Implementing the OECD [84]
Recommendation on Health Data Governance,
https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2022/05/health-data-governance-for-the-digital-
age_5c42de41.html.

OECD (2022), Supporting Health Inovation with Fair Information Practice Principles, [85]
https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-issues/digital-health-
systems/oecd-israel-health-data-governance-workshop-report.pdf.

OECD (2022), “The OECD Going Digital Measurement Roadmap”, OECD Digital Economy [10]
Papers, No. 328, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bd10100f-en.

OECD (2021), “Bridging connectivity divides”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 315, OECD [7]

Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e38f5db7-en.

OECD (2021), Measuring What Matters for Child Well-being and Policies, OECD Publishing, [22]
Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e82fded1-en.

OECD (2021), “Tools for trustworthy AI: A framework to compare implementation tools for [139]
trustworthy AI systems”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 312, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/008232ec-en.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
 WISE(2024)8 | 45

OECD (2020), Digitalistation and Responsible Business Conduct: Stocktaking of policies and [179]
intiatives, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/Digitalisation-and-
responsible-business-conduct.pdf.

OECD (2020), “Going Digital integrated policy framework”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, [166]
No. 292, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/dc930adc-en.

OECD (2020), How’s Life? 2020: Measuring Well-being, OECD Publishing, Paris, [20]

https://doi.org/10.1787/9870c393-en.

OECD (2019), Going Digital: Shaping Policies, Improving Lives, OECD Publishing, Paris, [216]
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264312012-en.

OECD (2019), How’s Life in the Digital Age?: Opportunities and Risks of the Digital [6]
Transformation for People’s Well-being, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264311800-en.

OECD (2019), “Trends Shaping Education 2019, OECD Publishing, Paris”, [174]
https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/trends_edu-2019-en.

OECD (2019), “What are the OECD Principles on AI?”, OECD Observer, [215]
https://doi.org/10.1787/6ff2a1c4-en.

OECD (2018), “Bridging the rural digital divide”, OECD Digital Economy Papers, Vol. No. [8]

265/OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/852bd3b9-en.

OECD (2017), OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2017: The digital [177]
transformation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264268821-en.

OECD (2017), Recommendation of the Council on Health Data Governance [82]

OECD/LEGAL/0433, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/public/doc/348/348.en.pdf.

OECD (2013), OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being, OECD Publishing, Paris, [153]

https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264191655-en.

OECD (1980), Recommendation of the Council concerning Guidelines Governing the Protection [83]
of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data,
https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0188.

OECD Publishing, P. (ed.) (2022), OECD Policy Framework on Digital Security: Cybersecurity [218]
for Prosperity, https://doi.org/10.1787/a69df866-en.

OECD/ILO/European Union (2023), Handbook on Measuring Digital Platform Employment and [13]
Work, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0ddcac3b-en.

Office of the U.S. Surgeon General (2023), Our Epidemic of Loneliness and Isolation: The U.S. [100]
Surgeon General’s Advisory on the Healing Effects of Social Connection and Community,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Service (HHS),
https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/surgeon-general-social-connection-advisory.pdf.

Office of the U.S. Surgeon General (2023), Social Media and Youth Mental Health, U.S. [50]
Department of Health and Human Service (HHS), https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/sg-
youth-mental-health-social-media-advisory.pdf (accessed on 24 June 2024).

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
46 | WISE(2024)8

Olan, F. et al. (2024), “Fake news on Social Media: the Impact on Society”, Information Systems [129]
Frontiers, Vol. 26/2, pp. 443-458, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-022-10242-z.

Orben, A. et al. (2022), “Windows of developmental sensitivity to social media”, Nature [156]
Communications, Vol. 13/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29296-3.

Pardhan, S. et al. (2022), “Risks of Digital Screen Time and Recommendations for Mitigating [61]
Adverse Outcomes in Children and Adolescents”, Journal of School Health, Vol. 92/8,
pp. 765-773, https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.13170.

Paré, G. et al. (2015), “Synthesizing information systems knowledge: A typology of literature [214]
reviews”, Information & Management, Vol. 52/2, pp. 183-199,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.08.008.

Paulus, M. et al. (2023), “Screen media activity in youth: A critical review of mental health and [42]
neuroscience findings”, Journal of Mood & Anxiety Disorders, Vol. 3, p. 100018,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xjmad.2023.100018.

Pedersen, J. et al. (2022), “Effects of limiting digital screen use on well-being, mood, and [38]

biomarkers of stress in adults”, npj Mental Health Research, Vol. 1/1,

https://doi.org/10.1038/s44184-022-00015-6.

Perifanou, M. and A. Economides (2020), “Gender Digital Divide in Europe”, International [193]
Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology, Vol. 10/4,
https://doi.org/10.30845/ijbht.v10n4p2.

Petrova, M., A. Sen and P. Yildirim (2021), “Social media and political contributions: The impact [207]

of new technology on political competition”, Management Science, Vol. 67/5,

https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3740.

Pew Research Center (2023), “Teens, Social Media and Technology 2023”, [95]

https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2023/12/PI_2023.12.11-Teens-
Social-Media-Tech_FINAL.pdf.

Pew Research Center (2021), “The State of Online Harassment”, [143]

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/01/13/the-state-of-online-harassment/.

Pew Research Center (2018), Social media outpaces print newspapers in the U.S. as a news [132]
source, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/10/social-media-outpaces-print-
newspapers-in-the-u-s-as-a-news-source/.

Pew Research Centre (2018), “Stories from experts about the impact of digital life”, [101]
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/07/03/stories-from-experts-about-the-impact-of-
digital-life/.

Piatak, J. and I. Mikkelsen (2021), “Does Social Media Engagement Translate to Civic [119]
Engagement Offline?”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 50/5, pp. 1079-1101,
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764021999444.

Polizzi, G. (2023), “Internet users’ utopian/dystopian imaginaries of society in the digital age: [133]
Theorizing critical digital literacy and civic engagement”, New Media and Society, Vol. 25/6,
pp. 1205-1226, https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211018609.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
 WISE(2024)8 | 47

Posetti, J. et al. (2020), Online violence Against Women Journalists: A Global Snapshot of [148]
Incidence and Impacts, UNESCO, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000375136.

Powell, A., A. Scott and N. Henry (2020), “Digital harassment and abuse: Experiences of [149]
sexuality and gender minority adults”, European Journal of Criminology, Vol. 17/2, pp. 199-
223, https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370818788006.

Primack, B. (2017), “Social Media Use and Perceived Social Isolation Among Young Adults in [107]
the U.S.”, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 53(1)/Included in Our Epidemic of
Loneliness and Isolation (2023) by the U.S. surgeon General's Advisory on the Healing
Effects of Social Connection and Community, https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/surgeon-
general-social-connection-advisory.pdf.

Przybylski, A. (2019), “Digital Screen Time and Pediatric Sleep: Evidence from a Preregistered [76]
Cohort Study”, Journal of Pediatrics, Vol. 205, pp. 218-223.e1,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.09.054.

Qu, G. et al. (2023), “Association between screen time and developmental and behavioral [43]
problems among children in the United States: evidence from 2018 to 2020 NSCH”, Journal
of Psychiatric Research, Vol. 161, pp. 140-149,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2023.03.014.

Ramo, D. and M. Lim (2021), “Technology Matters: Using apps to address loneliness in [110]
adolescents and young adults – leveraging tech engagement among digital natives”, Child
and Adolescent Mental Health, Vol. 26/2, pp. 186-188, https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12465.

Reddick, C. et al. (2020), “Determinants of broadband access and affordability: An analysis of a [203]
community survey on the digital divide”, Cities, Vol. 106,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102904.

Robeyns, I. (2020), “Wellbeing, place and technology”, Wellbeing, Space and Society, Vol. 1, [96]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wss.2020.100013.

Rocka, A. et al. (2022), “The Impact of Digital Screen Time on Dietary Habits and Physical [62]

Activity in Children and Adolescents”, Nutrients, Vol. 14/14,

https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14142985.

Sala, E., A. Gaia and G. Cerati (2022), “The Gray Digital Divide in Social Networking Site Use in [189]

Europe: Results From a Quantitative Study”, Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 40/2,
pp. 328-345, https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439320909507.

Scherr, S., C. Toma and B. Schuster (2019), “Depression as a Predictor of Facebook [32]

Surveillance and Envy”, Journal of Media Psychology, Vol. 31/4, pp. 196-202,
https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000247.

Seidler, Z. et al. (2022), “Virtual connection, real support? A study of loneliness, time on social [108]

media and psychological distress among men”, International Journal of Social Psychiatry,
Vol. 68/2, pp. 288-293, https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764020983836.

Shah, S. et al. (2019), “Effectiveness of digital technology interventions to reduce loneliness in [112]

adults: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis”, BMJ Open, Vol. 9/9,
p. e032455, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032455.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
48 | WISE(2024)8

Siegerink, V., M. Shinwell and Ž. Žarnic (2022), “Measuring the non-financial performance of [23]
firms through the lens of the OECD Well-being Framework: A common measurement
framework for “Scope 1” Social performance”, OECD Papers on Well-being and Inequalities,
No. 03, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/28850c7f-en.

Smith, L. et al. (2020), “The association between screen time and mental health during COVID- [40]
19: A cross sectional study”, Psychiatry research, Vol. 292/111333,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113333.

Smits, M. et al. (2022), From Digital Health to Digital Well-being: Systematic Scoping Review, [210]
JMIR Publications Inc., https://doi.org/10.2196/33787.

Song, Y., C. Qian and S. Pickard (2021), “Age-related digital divide during the covid-19 [170]
pandemic in China”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
Vol. 18/21, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182111285.

Sostero, M. et al. (2020), “Teleworkability and the COVID-19 crisis: a new digital divide?”, JRC [184]
Working Papers Series on Labour, Education and Technology, European Commission, Joing
Research Centre (JRC), https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Stockwell, S. et al. (2021), “Internet use, social isolation and loneliness in older adults”, Ageing [109]
and Society, Vol. 41/12, pp. 2723-2746, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X20000550.

Stuart, A. et al. (2023), “Digital Intervention in Loneliness in Older Adults: Qualitative Analysis of [114]
User Studies”, JMIR Formative Research, Vol. 7, https://doi.org/10.2196/42172.

Suárez Álvarez, A. and M. Vicente (2023), “Going “beyond the GDP” in the digital economy: [102]

exploring the relationship between internet use and well-being in Spain”, Humanities and
Social Sciences Communications, Vol. 10/1, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02110-1.

Suler, J. (2004), “The online disinhibition effect”, CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol. Vol. 7/3, [29]

https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295.

Sutherland, E. et al. (2023), “Fast-Track on digital security in health”, OECD Health Working [86]
Papers, No. 164, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c3357f9f-en.

Svensson, R., B. Johnson and A. Olsson (2022), “Does gender matter? The association between [59]
different digital media activities and adolescent well-being”, BMC Public Health, Vol. 22/1,
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-12670-7.

Tandoc, E., R. Thomas and L. Bishop (2021), “What is (Fake) news? analyzing news values [213]
(and more) in fake stories”, Media and Communication, Vol. 9/1, pp. 110-119,
https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v9i1.3331.

Thomas, J. et al. (2020), Measuring Australia’s Digital Divide: The Australian Digital Inclusion [211]
Index 2020, RMIT and Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne,
https://doi.org/10.25916/5f6eb9949c832.

Thomas, K. et al. (2021), SoK: Hate, harassment, and the changing landscape of online abuse, [142]
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.,
https://doi.org/10.1109/SP40001.2021.00028.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
 WISE(2024)8 | 49

Tomczyk, Ł. and E. Selmanagic Lizde (2023), “Is real screen time a determinant of problematic [26]
smartphone and social network use among young people?”, Telematics and Informatics,
Vol. 82, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2023.101994.

Touzet, C. (2023), “Teleworking through the gender looking glass: Facts and gaps”, OECD [197]
Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 285, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/8aff1a74-en.

Tu, Q., K. Wang and Q. Shu (2005), “Computer-related technostress in China”, Communications [160]
of the ACM, Vol. 48/4, pp. 77-81, https://doi.org/10.1145/1053291.1053323.

Twenge, J. and G. Martin (2020), “Gender differences in associations between digital media use [58]
and psychological well-being: Evidence from three large datasets”, Journal of Adolescence,
Vol. 79, pp. 91-102, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.12.018.

UN (2023), New UN Advisory Body aims to harness AI for the common good, [140]

https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1142867.

Valkenburg, P., A. Meier and I. Beyens (2022), Social media use and its impact on adolescent [33]
mental health: An umbrella review of the evidence, Elsevier B.V.,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.017.

Van de Werfhorst, H., E. Kessenich and S. Geven (2022), “The digital divide in online education: [188]

Inequality in digital readiness of students and schools”, Computers and Education Open,
Vol. 3, p. 100100, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100100.

Van Deursen, A. and E. Helsper (2015), “The third-level digital divide: who benefits most from [176]

being online?”, Communication and Information Technologies Annual (Studies in Media and,
Vol. 10, https://doi.org/10.1108/S2050-206020150000010002.

Vanden Abeele, M. and M. Nguyen (2022), “Digital well-being in an age of mobile connectivity: [1]

An introduction to the Special Issue”, Mobile Media and Communication, Vol. 10/2, pp. 174-
189, https://doi.org/10.1177/20501579221080899.

Varsik, S. and L. Vosberg (2024), “The potential impact of Artificial Intelligence on equity and [17]

inclusion in education”, OECD Artificial Intelligence Papers, No. 23, OECD Publishing, Paris,
https://doi.org/10.1787/15df715b-en.

Vuorre, M. and A. Przybylski (2023), “Global Well-Being and Mental Health in the Internet Age”, [39]

Clinical Psychological Science, Vol. 0(0), https://doi.org/10.1177/21677026231207791.

Wallace, J. et al. (2023), “A Population-Based Analysis of the Temporal Association of Screen [52]
Time and Aggressive Behaviors in Adolescents”, JAACAP Open, Vol. 1/4, pp. 284-294,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaacop.2023.08.002.

Waller, I. and A. Anderson (2021), “Quantifying social organization and political polarization in [137]
online platforms”, Nature, Vol. 600/7888, pp. 264-268, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-
04167-x.

Walsh, A. et al. (2024), “A collaborative realist review of remote measurement technologies for [81]
depression in young people”, Nature Human Behaviour, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-
01793-5.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
50 | WISE(2024)8

Whitty, M. and G. Young (2016), Cyberpsychology: The Study of Individuals, Society and Digital [30]
Technologies, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Wilf, S. and L. Wray-Lake (2021), ““That’s How Revolutions Happen”: Psychopolitical Resistance [124]
in Youth’s Online Civic Engagement”, Journal of Adolescent Research,
https://doi.org/10.1177/07435584211062121.

World Wide Web Foundation (2020), Women’s Rights Online: Closing the digital gender gap for [194]
a more equal world, http://webfoundation.org/docs/2020/10/Womens-Rights-Online-Report-
1.pdf.

Yarchi, M., C. Baden and N. Kligler-Vilenchik (2020), “Political Polarization on the Digital Sphere: [135]
A Cross-platform, Over-time Analysis of Interactional, Positional, and Affective Polarization on
Social Media”, Political Communication, pp. 1-42,
https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1785067.

Youssef, A., M. Dahmani and L. Ragni (2022), “ICT Use, Digital Skills and Students’ Academic [182]
Performance: Exploring the Digital Divide”, Information (Switzerland), Vol. 13/3,
https://doi.org/10.3390/info13030129.

Yue, A. et al. (2021), Developing an Indicator Framework for Digital Wellbeing: Perspectives [220]
from Digital Citizenship Acknowledgements, https://ctic.nus.edu.sg/resources/CTIC-WP-
01(2021).pdf.

Zhao, L. and L. Wu (2022), “The Relationship Between Digital Activity and Bedtime, Sleep [74]
Duration, and Sleep Quality in Chinese Working Youth”, Nature and Science of Sleep,
Vol. 14, pp. 419-432, https://doi.org/10.2147/NSS.S348929.

Zhu, C. et al. (2021), Cyberbullying Among Adolescents and Children: A Comprehensive Review [150]
of the Global Situation, Risk Factors, and Preventive Measures, Frontiers Media S.A.,
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.634909.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
 WISE(2024)8 | 51

Annex A. The list of reviewed academic articles (selected)

Table A.1. Selected literature on the link between the digital technology and well-being
Well-being Author Year Source Methodology Number of Key findings related to digital technologies and well-being
dimension observations/
studies
Health Harvey et al. 2022 Preventive Medicine Quantitative N= 60,200 Daily screen time increased from 9 hours in 2012 to 11 hours in 2019.
(2012); N =
550,500 (2019)
Health Davies et al. 2012 Preventive Medicine Quantitative N =3,796 The combination of no physical activity and high screen-time demonstrated the greatest
negative impact on health-related quality of life.
Health Tomczyk and 2023 Telematics and Informatics Quantitative N = 1,185 Screen time correlates weakly with problematic smartphone use and social networking.
Selmanagic
Lizde
Health Davie 2022 Paediatrics and Child Health Several studies have indicated a negative correlation between screen time and mental health,
but its causal relationship is unclear.
Health Scherr, Toma 2019 Journal of Media Quantitative Depression predicted envy, and envy predicted Facebook surveillance over time.
and Schuster Psychology
Health Valkenburg, 2022 Current Opinion in Literature 25 studies There is no conclusive evidence of the causal effects between social media use and mental
Meier and Psychology review health.
Beyens
Health Lepp, Barkley 2014 Computers in Human Quantitative cell phone use Cell phone use/texting was negatively related to academic performance (GPA) and positively
and Karpinski Behavior (N = 496) and related to anxiety.
texting (N =
490)
Health Cunningham, 2021 Research on Child and Meta-analysis 62 studies (N= Depression symptoms were significantly, but weakly, associated with time spent using SNS
Hudson and Adolescent 451,229) and intensity of SNS use.
Harkness Psychopathology
Health Donati, D. et al. 2022 SSRN Electronic Journal Quantitative N=63,496 Internet access is associated with an increase in depression and anxiety for younger cohorts

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
52 | WISE(2024)8

Well-being Author Year Source Methodology Number of Key findings related to digital technologies and well-being
dimension observations/
studies
(10–28-year-olds), but not for older individuals.
Health Braghieri, Levy 2022 American Economic Review Quantitative N= 359,827 The rollout of Facebook at a college had a negative impact on student mental health.
and Makarin
Health Pedersen et al. 2022 npj Mental Health Research Quantitative N= 89 families, Screen-use reduction measure resulted in a statistically significant improvement in self-
164 adults reported well-being and mood in adults.
Health Smith et al. 2020 Psychiatry Research Quantitative N=932 (adults) For UK adults self-isolating due to COVID-19, the association between screen time per day in
hours and poor mental health was studied in the overall population.
Health Meyer et al. 2020 International Journal of Quantitative N=3,052 Decreased physical activity and increased screen time during the COVID-19 pandemic were
Environmental Research found to be associated with worse depression, loneliness and stress.
and Public Health
Health Qu et al. 2023 Journal of Psychiatric Quantitative N=101,350 The association between excessive screen time and developmental and behavioral problems
Research was stronger among preschoolers than among children and adolescents.
Health Jourdren, 2023 Pediatric Neurology Systematic 15 studies (5 There is evidence of a relationship between high exposure to screens and both immediate
Bucaille and review cross-sectional, and long-term attentional functions in preschool children.
Ropars 10 longitudinal)
Health Chaarani et al. 2022 JAMA Network Open Quantitative N=2,217 Attention problems, depression, and ADHD scores were higher in 9- and 10-year-old children
who spend more than 21 hours per week videogaming.
Health Harriger et al. 2022 Body Image Literature Social media use is linked to higher body dissatisfaction and the use of algorithms serves to
review exacerbate this relationship.
Health Ganson et al. 2023 Preventive Medicine Quantitative N = 12,031 Screen time and social media use are associated with weight-change behaviors among
adolescents.
Health Chau, Perrin and 2024 Psychiatry Research Quantitative N=1,559 Adolescents’ total daily screen-time highly predicts school behaviour, and mental difficulties.
Chau
Health Wallace et al. 2023 JAACAP Open Quantitative N=3,826 Social media use was associated with fighting and conduct problems for adolescents that
depends, among others, on the type of digital platform through which such content is
presented.
Health Mantey, Yockey 2023 Preventive Medicine Quantitative N= 73,011 Elevated screen time (i.e., 2+ hours per day) was associated with suicidality during high
and Springer school, with cyberbullying mediating the relationship.
Health James et al. 2017 Pediatrics Literature A complex interplay of individual factors, type of digital media engagement, and experiences
review in media contexts informs outcomes related to well-being, social connectedness, empathy,
and narcissism.
Health Masur 2021 Oxford research Literature Digital communication might have bi-directional effects on both loneliness and life satisfaction,
encyclopedia of review which additionally might not follow a linear trend.
communication

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
 WISE(2024)8 | 53

Well-being Author Year Source Methodology Number of Key findings related to digital technologies and well-being
dimension observations/
studies
Health Chung et al. 2021 Journal of Medical Internet Literature 6 articles (N= Adolescent peer influence in social media environments spans the spectrum of healthy eating
Research review 1,225) (ie, pathological) to eating disorders (ie, nonpathological).
Health Twenge and 2020 Journal of Adolescence Quantitative N = 221,096 For both girls and boys, heavy users of digital media were often twice as likely as low users to
Martin be low in well-being or have mental health issues, including risk factors for suicide. The
correlation between heavy digital media use and low psychological well-being was more
pronounced for girls than boys.
Health Svensson, 2022 BMC Public Health Quantitative N=3,957 Social media use was highly and positively associated with internalizing symptoms for girls
Johnson and only.
Olsson
Health Pardhan et al. 2022 Journal of School Health Literature Digital screen time was found to have increased for children and adolescents in all the studies
review examined during the pandemic and data suggests that this has an impact on eye and general
health.
Health Rocka et al. 2022 Nutrients Quantitative N = 3,127 The majority of children were exposed to screens during meals, which is a risk factor of
obesity.
Health Dalgren et al. 2021 PLoS ONE Quantitative N =121 Smartphone screen time was not associated with physical activity level among children and
adolescents aged 10–15 years.
Health Mehra and Galor 2020 Asia-Pacific Journal of Literature Visual display terminals (VDTs) use has been associated with a number of Dry Eye Symptoms
Ophthalmology review and signs.
Health Al-Mohtaseb et 2021 Clinical Ophthalmology Literature Digital screen use duration is associated with an increased risk of severe symptoms and
al. review clinical diagnosis of dry eye disease in adults.
Health Muntz et al. 2022 Contact Lens and Anterior Quantitative N =456 Extended screen time in a young population was associated with blinking behaviour and
Eye symptomology consistent with patients with dry eye.
Health Agarwal et al. 2022 Journal of Family Medicine Quantitative N=435 The most common symptoms associated with digital eye strain were eyestrain 52.8% (N =
and Primary Care 230) and headache 31.3% (N = 136).
Health Lanca and Saw 2020 Ophthalmic and Systematic 15 studies The results for screen time and myopia are mixed.
Physiological Optics review (N=49,789)
Health Christensen et 2016 PLoS ONE Quantitative N=653 Longer average screentime during bedtime and the sleeping period were associated with poor
al. sleep quality, decreased sleep efficiency, and longer sleep onset latency.
Health Echevarria et al. 2023 Sleep Medicine: X Quantitative N=1,949 (sleep Screen use for ≥ 6hs/24hs was associated with a shorter sleep duration, and ≥ 9hs/24hs
quality), with poor sleep quality.
N=1,851 (sleep
duration)
Health Cabre-Riera et 2019 Environmental Research Quantitative N=258 Frequency of cordless phone calls, mobile phone dependency, and tablet use were related to
al. an increase of subjective and objective sleep problems in adolescents.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
54 | WISE(2024)8

Well-being Author Year Source Methodology Number of Key findings related to digital technologies and well-being
dimension observations/
studies
Health Lebourgeois et 2017 Pediatrics Literature There is an adverse association between screen-based media consumption and sleep health,
al. review primarily via delayed bedtimes and reduced total sleep duration.
Health Zhao and Wu 2022 Nature and Science of Quantitative N=7,849 Digital usage significantly predicted delayed bedtime, but it was not linked to sleep duration on
Sleep workdays or free days.
Health Garcia et al. 2024 American Journal of Human Quantitative N=771 No association was found between screen time and sleep quality or sleep duration.
Biology
Health Przybylski 2019 Journal of Pediatrics Quantitative N=50,212 Digital screen time, on its own, had little practical effect on pediatric sleep.
Health Eisner, Berry 2023 BMC Psychiatry Quantitative N=157 (in- Smartphones appear appropriate for delivering internet-enabled support for psychosis but
and Bucci person), N=58 barriers to using mental health apps included forgetting, lack of motivation, security concerns,
(online) and concerns it would replace face-to-face care.
Social Meier and 2021 Communication Research Meta-analysis 34 reviews, 594 There is a small negative association between social media use and mental health but effects
connections Reinecke publications are complex and depend on the indicators investigated.
Social Di Cara et al. 2022 npj Mental Health Research Quantitative N= 4,083 Users of different platforms and frequencies are not homogeneous. User
connections groups differ primarily by sex and YouTube users are the most likely to have poorer mental
health outcomes.
Social Hall 2018 New Media and Society Quantitative N=116(study One cannot equate social media use with meaningful social interaction, and browsing or
connections 1), broadcasting can be classified as unfocused interaction and social attention.
N=197(study
2), N=54(study
3)
Social Hohenstein et al. 2023 Scientific Reports Quantitative N=361(study The algorithmic response suggestions (“smart replies”) were found to increase both the
connections 1), communication speed and the use of positive emotional language.
N=510(study 2)
Social Al Mahmud et al. 2022 International Journal of Quantitative N=34 Six key recommendations for developing web-based interventions for older adults: tone (e.g.,
connections Human-Computer avoid using negative terminologies such as loneliness), relatability, accessibility, readability,
Interaction engagement and trustworthiness of the site.
Social Bowman, Rieger 2022 Current Opinion in Literature While existing research generally demonstrates the social dynamics of gaming and
connections and Tammy Lin Psychology review demonstrates the role of games for well-being, a robust and directed merging of these two
complimentary lines of research is currently lacking.
Social Andersen and 2022 Computers and Education Quantitative N=400 Using Minecraft, a digital multiplayer game which involves constructing different buildings and
connections Rustad Open /Qualitative figures, can contribute to students’ development of teamwork and collaboration skills.
Social Suárez Álvarez 2023 Humanities and Social Quantitative N=3,614 The effect of internet usage depends on the dimension of well-being considered, being
connections and Vicente Sciences Communications negative for happiness, life satisfaction and meetings but positive as regards to connections
/subjective and participation.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
 WISE(2024)8 | 55

Well-being Author Year Source Methodology Number of Key findings related to digital technologies and well-being
dimension observations/
studies
well-being
Social Allcott et al. 2020 American Economic Review Quantitative N=2,710 60 minutes were freed up by deactivating Facebook for four weeks, and these newly freed
connections (endline) time were then reallocated to offline activities, both solitary (e.g., solitary TV watching) and
social activities (e.g., spending time with friends and family). Deactivation also reduced both
factual news knowledge and political polarisation; increased subjective well-being; and caused
a large persistent reduction in post-experiment Facebook use.
Social Luhmann, 2023 Nature Reviews Psychology Literature The link between the digitalization of social interactions and loneliness seems weak, and the
connections Buecker and review causal direction of the association is unclear.
Rüsberg
Social Nowland, Necka 2018 Perspectives on Literature There is a bidirectional and dynamic relationship between loneliness and social Internet use.
connections and Cacioppo Psychological Science review
Social McKenna- 2021 PLoS ONE Qualitative N=8 The loss of in-person interaction during the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to feelings of
connections Plumley et al. loneliness and digital interaction was viewed as an insufficient alternative.
Social Seidler et al. 2022 International Journal of Quantitative N=979 Loneliness predicts psychological distress via time spent on social media, for younger men
connections Social Psychiatry only.
Social Stockwell et al. 2021 Ageing and Society Quantitative N=4,492 For older English adults (aged 50+), those using Internet/email less than once every three
connections months were significantly more likely to be socially isolated than every day users.
Social Lim et al. 2020 Social Psychiatry and Qualitative/ N=12 A pilot digital intervention (+Connect) targeting loneliness in young people with psychosis
connections Psychiatric Epidemiology Quantitative yielded high levels of acceptability and feasibility; and positive reinforcement of in-game
rewards and evidence of positive mood changes added to the feasibility of the app.
Social Shah et al. 2019 BMJ Open Meta-analysis 6 studies No statistically significant reduction in loneliness was found with digital technology
connections interventions.
Social Barbosa Neves, 2023 Sociological Research Qualitative 3 case studies Technology-based interventions among frail older people (aged 65+), such as communication
connections Waycott and Online apps, can come with negative unintended consequences such as increasing awareness of
Maddox loneliness.
Social Stuart et al. 2023 JMIR Formative Research Qualitative N=33(study 1), Older adults desired app functionalities that can support mutual activities, maintain and forge
connections N=10(Study 2), new connections, but were less interested in sharing their emotional well-being.
N=12(Study 3)
Social Boucher et al. 2021 JMIR Mental Health Qualitative N=11 The heterogeneity in participants’ experiences with loneliness emphasizes the subjective and
connections complex nature of loneliness, highlighting the importance developing loneliness interventions
that use a variety of strategies
Civic Erhardt and 2021 Social Science Computer Quantitative N=31,308 There is a robust positive effect of social Internet use for information (in the form of writing
engagement Freitag Review (LISS Panel), emails) on civic engagement (i.e., becoming or remaining active in an organisation), but not
N=17,948 for other Internet activities (e.g., passive use of Internet for entertainment).
(SHP)

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
56 | WISE(2024)8

Well-being Author Year Source Methodology Number of Key findings related to digital technologies and well-being
dimension observations/
studies
Civic Boulianne 2020 Communication Research Meta-analysis 300 studies There is a positive relationship between digital media use and offline participation in civic and
engagement political life, with the effect becoming more pronounced in recent years.
Civic Piatak and 2021 Nonprofit and Voluntary Quantitative N=64,400 There is 2-percentage point increase in level in political engagement offline with additional
engagement Mikkelsen Sector Quarterly levels of engagement on social media.
Civic Allcott et al. 2024 Proceedings of the National Quantitative N=19,857 Deactivation of Facebook and Instagram reduced the index of political participation, while also
engagement Academy of Sciences (Facebook reducing knowledge of general news and possibly belief in mis- and dis-information.
users), N=
15,585
(Instagram
users)
Civic Lee 2022 International Review on Quantitative N=1,224 One’s social media capital (measured with Facebook friends, Twitter/X/X followers and
engagement Public and Nonprofit Twitter/X/X following) is positively correlated with participation in both political and non-political
Marketing charitable organisations.
Civic Kaskazi and 2023 New Media and Society Qualitative N=23 Minority teens, equipped with digital skills used in social lives, are more active seeking,
engagement Kitzie sharing and using information for political activity.
Civic Wilf and Wray- 2021 Journal of Adolescent Qualitative N=20 Youth with historically marginalised identities use social media to be civically engaged.
engagement Lake Research
Civic Baptista and 2020 Social Sciences Literature N=52 Fake news explores all possible aspects to attract the reader’s attention, from the formation of
engagement Gradim review the title to the language used throughout the body of the text.
Civic Tandoc, Thomas 2021 Media and Communication Literature N=886 Fake news were very much similar to the traditional news articles, but they often lacked in
engagement and Bishop review (articles) objectivity, not excluding personal opinion of the author.
/Quantitative
Civic Olan et al. 2024 Information Systems Quantitative N=356 Societal acceptance of information and news is highly dependent on the verification and fact-
engagement Frontiers checking features that are available on the Social Media platforms.
Civic Breakstone et al. 2022 Journal of Higher Education Quantitative N=263 A majority of college students employed ineffective strategies for evaluating digital
engagement information.
Civic Moon and Bai 2020 Journal of Children and Quantitative N=2,584 A regression analysis on adolescents revealed a positive causal relationship between three
engagement Media components of digital literacy (i.e., information usage, communication and creation) with civic
engagement (i.e., expressing opinions about social issues, volunteering, donating).
Civic Polizzi 2023 New Media and Society Literature It proposes a theoretical framework for researching how critical digital literacy, based on
engagement review constructing and deploying utopian/dystopian imaginaries of society in the digital age,
facilitates civic engagement.
Civic Yarchi, Baden 2020 Political Communication Quantitative N=124,165 Political polarization on social media cannot be conceptualized as a unified phenomenon, as
engagement and Kligler- (facebook), there are significant cross-platform differences between Twitter/X, WhatsApp and Facebook.
N=132,226(Twi

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
 WISE(2024)8 | 57

Well-being Author Year Source Methodology Number of Key findings related to digital technologies and well-being
dimension observations/
studies
Vilenchik tter/X/X),
N=5395
(whatsapp)
Civic Lang, Erickson 2021 PLoS ONE Qualitative N=412,959 The digital discourse on Twitter/X about mask wearing was rhetorically polarized whereby the
engagement and Jing- /Quantitative (mask-related rallying calls of the mask supporters were amplified by other mask supporters, and the battle
Schmidt tokens of 35 cries of the mask resistors resonated with other mask resistors but were drowned out and
distinct types of ignored by a vocal and overwhelming pro-mask majority.
hashtags from
a total of
149,110 users)
Civic Waller and 2021 Nature Qualitative N= 5.1 billion Examining political content, the authors find that Reddit underwent a significant polarization
engagement Anderson /Quantitative (comments event around the 2016 US presidential election, but the system-level shift in 2016 was
made on disproportionately driven by the arrival of new users.
Reddit posts)
Civic Nordbrandt 2023 New Media and Society Quantitative N=8,551 No support was found for the hypothesis that social media use contributed to the level of
engagement affective polarization but the results lend support to the hypothesis that it was the level of
affective polarization that affected subsequent use of social media.
Personal Thomas et al. 2021 Proceedings of IEEE Literature N=150 (papers) Hate and harassment is a pervasive, growing experience for online users, particularly for at-
safety Symposium on Security and review N=50,000 risk communities like young adults and people who identify as LGBTQ+.
Privacy /Quantitative
Personal Im et al. 2022 Proceedings of the ACM on Quantitative N = 3,993 On average, women perceive greater harm associated with online harassment than men,
safety Human-Computer especially for non-consensual image sharing.
Interaction
Personal Chadha et al. 2020 International Journal of Qualitative N=23 Women deploy various defensive strategies while navigating online spaces, from normalizing
safety Communication harassment to self-censorship and withdrawal.
Personal Goyal, Park and 2022 Proceedings of CHI Qualitative N=27 Tackling documentation and reporting challenges is an important effort for empowering female
safety Vasserman Conference on Human journalists and their support networks to address online harassment attacks.
Factors in Computing
Systems
Personal Lewis, Zamith 2020 Digital Journalism Literature N=450 Nearly all journalists experience at least some online harassment but such harassment is
safety and Coddington review/ generally infrequent overall. However, online harassment against journalists disproportionately
Quantitative affects women.
Personal Powell, Scott 2020 European Journal of Quantitative N=282(sexualit Transgender individuals experience higher rates of digital harassment and abuse overall, as
safety and Henry Criminology y diverse compared with heterosexual cisgender individuals.
adults), N=90

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
58 | WISE(2024)8

Well-being Author Year Source Methodology Number of Key findings related to digital technologies and well-being
dimension observations/
studies
(gender diverse
adults)
Personal Zhu et al. 2021 Frontiers in Public Health Systematic 63 studies Cyberbullying victimization rate, of which verbal violence was the most common type,
safety review increased significantly in the observed period of 5-year period (2015-2019) for adolescents
and children.
Personal Copp, Mumford 2021 Journal of Adolescence Quantitative N=1,152 Online sexual harassment and cyberbullying victimization have similar risk profiles, and both
safety and Taylor contribute to heightened risk of mental health and behavioral problems.
Personal Mitchell and 2021 European Child and Quantitative N=477 Female adolescents are more likely to experience online sexual harassment than their male
safety Štulhofer Adolescent Psychiatry peers, whereby online sexual harassment was also correlated with negative mood especially
for those with low levels of resilience.
Subjective Grimes and 2019 Motu Economic and Public Quantitative N= 3,455 (2017 Adults and adolescents who do not have Internet access tend to have lower levels of
well-being White Policy Research NZES survey) subjective well-being, but once daily Internet use for adolescents exceeds about two hours,
there is no positive correlation between the Internet use and subjective well-being.
Subjective Bailey et al. 2020 Nature Communications Quantitative N=10,560 Individuals who are more authentic in their self-expression report greater Life Satisfaction.
well-being (facebook
users)
Subjective Orben et al. 2022 Nature Communications Quantitative N=84,011 A negative correlation between self-reported estimates of social media use and life
well-being satisfaction, most notably amongst young adolescents (of 10-15 years of age).
Subjective García-Hermoso 2020 International Journal of Quantitative N=1,540 Excessive screen time (i.e., of two or more hours per day) was found to be correlated with
well-being et al. Clinical and Health negative feelings among children, independent of the level of their physical activity.
Psychology
Subjective Daneels et al. 2021 Media and Communication Literature N=82 studies Digital game appreciation was often and closely connected to meaningful, emotionally moving
well-being review or challenging, and self-reflective experiences.
Subjective Nisafani, Kiely 2020 Journal of Decision Systems Literature N= 42 papers Techno-uncertainty, techno-complexity, and technology dependency are some causes of
well-being and Mahony review technostress and with these causes, workers experience strains such as emotional
exhaustion and some negative emotions.
Subjective Bordi et al. 2018 Nordic journal of working life Qualitative N=36 Six themes were found to affect wellbeing at work: the volume of digital communication,
well-being studies /Quantitative expectations of constant connectivity, the quality of the messages, adaptation of new tools,
technical problems, and flexibility in communication.
Inequalities Millán et al. 2021 Journal of Business Quantitative N = 5,700 Earnings rise with the level of ICT use but only from a threshold of utilisation accounting for at
Research least 25 per cent of the time
Inequalities Youssef, 2022 Information Quantitative N = 1,323 Poor investment in ICT affects students’ academic performance; student performance
Dahmani and improves with the innovative and collaborative use of ICTs; and acquisition of digital skills
Ragni increases students’ academic performance.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
 WISE(2024)8 | 59

Well-being Author Year Source Methodology Number of Key findings related to digital technologies and well-being
dimension observations/
studies
Inequalities Elena-Bucea et 2021 Information Systems Literature E-Services adoption is influenced primarily by the education level of individuals, while Social
al. Frontiers review/ Networks adoption is more affected by individuals’ age.
Quantitative
Inequalities Sostero et al. 2020 JRC Working Papers Series Quantitative Differences in teleworkability emerge between high- and low-paid workers, between white-
on Labour, Education and and blue-collar workers, as well as by gender.
Technology
Inequalities Chang et al. 2021 Milbank Quarterly Quantitative N =918 People from socially vulnerable communities faced significant barriers to telehealth services
during the COVID-19 pandemic, and used telephone more often than video consultations.
Inequalities Eberly et al. 2020 Circulation Quantitative N =2,940 During the COVID-19 pandemic, inequities was compounded even among patients without
COVID in outpatient routine care via inequitable access to telemedical care for female, non–
English-speaking, older, and poorer patients. Non-English language was independently
associated with >50% lower telemedicine use.
Inequalities Nam and Lee 2023 Telematics and Informatics Quantitative N =5,477 A disproportionate concentration of Fin-tech services usage was found among higher-income
individuals.
Inequalities Van de 2022 Computers and Education Quantitative N = 18,882 Those from higher SES background used ICT more for school than their peers from the less
Werfhorst, Open (study 1), advantaged backgrounds.
Kessenich and N = 135,169
Geven (study 2)
Inequalities Sala, Gaia and 2022 Social Science Computer Quantitative N= 97,786 There is the persistence of the intergeneration digital divide in old age together
Cerati Review (aged 65-74), with the marked cross-countries differences in SNS use across European countries and over
N=16,444 time.
(aged 55-64)
Inequalities Elena-Bucea et 2021 Information Systems Literature E-Services adoption is influenced primarily by the education level of individuals, while Social
al. Frontiers review/ Networks adoption is more affected by individuals’ age.
Quantitative
Inequalities Choi et al. 2020 The Gerontologist Quantitative N=5,914 Greater exposure to ageism is generally related to less use of the internet. For women, a
lower level of internet use was predicted by more negative perceptions of ageing, whereas
men’s internet use was associated with the experience of age discrimination.
Inequalities Gran, Booth and 2021 Information Communication Quantitative N=1,624 There are clear demographic differences regarding levels of algorithms awareness.
Bucher and Society Awareness of algorithms was high among the youth but it was the lowest among elderly.
Inequalities Galperin and 2021 Telecommunications Policy Quantitative N=69,172 Differences in employment patterns between men and women is the largest single contributor
Arcidiacono (Ecuador), to the gender gap in Internet use in four Latin American countries, ahead of differences in
N=8,725,065 other predictors of Internet use such as income, age and education.
(Guatemala),
N=108,615

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE
60 | WISE(2024)8

Well-being Author Year Source Methodology Number of Key findings related to digital technologies and well-being
dimension observations/
studies
(Mexico),
N=29,605
(Peru)
Inequalities Arroyo 2020 Social Inclusion Qualitative N=32 Because women are active both in the labour market and in the household as unpaid workers,
it could negatively affect their availability to connect to the Internet and develop adequate
digital skills
Inequalities Cho and Kim 2022 Disability and Health Journal Quantitative N= 5,575 A higher number of people with disabilities (PWD) reported that their Internet usage with both
(People without computers and mobile devices remained similar to the pre-pandemic period while that of
disabilities), people without disabilities (PWOD) reported that their internet usage via the same has
N=1,781 increased.
(People with
disabilities)
Inequalities Mason, 2021 Journal of Health Quantitative N=139 On 130 health-focused websites, the most common accessibility failures were low contrast,
Compton and Communication empty links, missing ALT text, empty buttons, and missing form labels.
Bhati
Inequalities Johansson, 2021 Universal Access in the Quantitative N=771 There are differences in digital inclusion between sub-groups of diagnoses/impairments;
Gulliksen and Information Society people with disabilities related to language and understanding reported more difficulties using
Gustavsson internet than other disability groups.
Inequalities Galperin, Le and 2021 Government Information Quantitative N=28,273 Competition and fiber-based services are less likely in low-income areas and minority
Wyatt Quarterly communities, with the most severe deficits observed in census block groups that combine
poverty and a large share of Black residents.
Inequalities Reddick et al. 2020 Cities Quantitative N=6,048 Controlling for all other factors such as income, gender, age, and education, the digital divide
in broadband access depended on where you lived in the city.
Inequalities Gallego and 2022 Annual Review of Political Literature Digitalization creates economic losers who are more likely to vote against the political status
Kurer Science review quo, but it also creates winners with distinct preferences who support the status quo and can
even take over some existing political parties.
Inequalities Güvercin 2022 Technology in Society Quantitative N=82 If the business sector’s digital adoption is high, it is more likely for the leading political party to
(countries) adopt populist rhetoric; and digitalization increases populism for both left-wing and right-wing
political parties.
Inequalities Gallego, Kurer 2022 Journal of Politics Quantitative N= 287,352 (for Ordinary winners of digitalization (i.e. neither left-behind in digitalization nor successful
and Schöll 61,071 technology entrepreneurs) provide some stabilizing force by supporting the center-right
individuals) mainstream or the incumbent party.

THE IMPACT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES ON WELL-BEING: MAIN INSIGHTS FROM THE LITERATURE