Can Social Media Use Be More Health-Promoting? Description and Pilot Evaluation of a School-Based Program to Increase Awareness and Reflection on the Use of Social Media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social media plays a significant role in adolescents’ lives, with both positive and negative effects. Implementing interventions to mitigate the negative aspects and enhance the positive ones could improve adolescents’ well-being. Unfortunately, there is a scarcity of evidence-based interventions available. To fill this gap, we have developed a school-based program based on combining evidence-based and consensus-based approaches, incorporating input from adolescents, school personnel, researchers, and municipal advisers. This paper describes the program’s content and principles, and presents the results from a pilot evaluation, which assesses feedback from pupils and teachers, thereby informing potential enhancements and the program’s overall significance. The intervention description encompasses theoretical perspectives, behavior change techniques, and procedural details. Pupils ( n = 266; 16+ years) evaluated the program concerning satisfaction, relevance, importance, and usefulness through a questionnaire. Additionally, exploratory focus group interviews were conducted with seven teachers and eleven pupils to gather their perspectives on the program’s relevance, impact, and potential changes to the theme-based teaching. Results from the pilot showed an average score of 7.3/10 for overall satisfaction with the program. Sub-questions assessing perceived relevance, engagement, and usefulness averaged between 6.7 and 7.5. Gender differences were observed, with boys tending to rate the program lower than girls. In focus group interviews, the pupils expressed increasing awareness of their own and others’ social media use, that the topic was important and exciting, and that the program generally worked well. The pupils’ evaluation indicates the need for this kind of program described in this study.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".