Social media use and health and wellbeing of LGBTQ youth: A systematic review (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND LGBTQ individuals are at higher risk of poor mental health and wellbeing. Social media platforms can provide LGBTQ youth a space which counters heteronormative environments and potentially supports mental health and wellbeing. OBJECTIVE In this systematic review, we sought to assess the relationship between social media use and mental health and wellbeing in LGBTQ youth. METHODS Searches were conducted in ACM Digital Library, CINAHL, OVID Embase, OVID Medline, and Web of Science. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for quantitative articles and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme for qualitative articles. Qualitative synthesis was performed on articles that satisfied eligibility and inclusion criteria. RESULTS Twenty-six articles (15 qualitative, 8 quantitative, and 3 mixed methods) met the inclusion criteria. Social media is a popular tool commonly used by LGBTQ youth to connect with LGBTQ communities. LGBTQ youth also negotiated and explored identity and obtained support from peers on social media. Instagram, Tumblr, and Twitter were commonly used to access LGBTQ content due to ease of anonymity. Identity management was important for LGBTQ youth with social media allowing strategic disclosure. Key strategies for managing identities included being anonymous, censoring locations/content, restricting audiences, and using multiple accounts. Quantitative studies showed that social media was associated with reduced mental health concerns and increased wellbeing for LGBTQ youth. Mental health concerns arising from social media use were attributed to policies that did not accommodate for changed identities. CONCLUSIONS We found that social media may support mental health and wellbeing of LGBTQ youth through peer connection, identity management, and social support but findings were limited by weaknesses in the evidence. More robust studies are needed to determine the relationship between social media use and LGBTQ mental health, particularly among adolescents. This may inform interventions to promote social media health literacy and the mental health and wellbeing of this vulnerable group.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".