The effectiveness of prevention programs for problematic Internet use in adolescents and youths: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Problematic Internet use (PIU) can lead to dysfunction and undesired consequences, especially in adolescents and youths. Preventive interventions can reduce them, but should be built on sound evidence. This review synthesizes the available evidence on the effectiveness of primary prevention programs for PIU in adolescents and youths. It adds to previous reviews by broadening the search to general and specific problematic behavior. Two independent reviewers performed a systematic search for published studies on PIU and internet addiction in English, French and Spanish using PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus. Published experimental and quasi-experimental studies that assessed the effectiveness of primary prevention programs targeting PIU behaviors were considered for inclusion. Full texts for eligible studies were retrieved and assessed for quality. Five studies were retained for narrative synthesis. Three of them based the intervention strategy on an underlying theory, one on media literacy, and one used an educational-based approach. A meta-analysis showed that all five interventions were effective in preventing internet addiction separately. However, when using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) estimator and removing one of the studies because of a disproportionate Hedges’ g, combined effects were no longer significant. Although PIU is a popular topic, little is known about ways to prevent it. This review demonstrates that prevention programs can be based on different theoretical approaches, but that the available evidence is too heterogeneous to derive generalizable conclusions concerning their effectiveness.

Smartphone and social network addiction in early adolescents: The role of self‐regulatory self‐efficacy in a pilot school‐based intervention

“…Going through our research questions, we supported the short-term effectiveness of the intervention (Catalano et al, 2019;Lerner et al, 2016), because our findings showed a significant reduction in smartphone and SNS addiction levels in youths that participated the program, compared with those who did not participate (Romero Saletti et al, 2021;Schwartz et al, 2016). The effectiveness of the intervention was further supported by the differences between the intervention and control groups in online addiction initial levels: being part of one of these two groups did not influence youths' baseline levels of smartphone and or SNS problematic use, so we can conclude that all the differences that we found in the short-term trends of the two addictive behaviors could capture the effectiveness of the intervention rather than an a priori difference among students (Catalano et al, 2019;Grimm et al, 2012).…”

“…Thus, future improvements of the project should include an extended analysis of youths' family functioning, such as parenting styles and practices, that have been demonstrated to significantly influence the emergence and the maintenance of addictive behaviors in youths, as well as an examination of the school context, which also play a significant role for online addictive behaviors (e.g., Gugliandolo et al, 2020;Pellerone et al, 2019). To better capture the contextual factors that could predispose or protect youths from incurring online addictive behaviors, an evaluation of the policies and actions that the schools already used to deal with these issues, at local and national levels, to summarize best practices and empower more efficient strategies should be done (Romero Saletti et al, 2021;Throuvala et al, 2019).…”

“…The school is the most used context to draw preventive interventions, because is one of the most significant environments for adolescents (Throuvala et al, 2019). Several meta‐analyses and reviews (e.g., Cañas & Estévez, 2021; Lopez‐Fernandez & Kuss, 2020; Romero Saletti et al, 2021) demonstrated that school‐based interventions allowed to touch wider target populations while reducing the socioeconomic costs to implement a primary intervention (e.g., Throuvala et al, 2019). For example, Haug et al (2020) implemented a preventive intervention against addictive behaviors among 15‐years‐old vocational Swiss students, who completed online training via an ad hoc app for 4 months, which showed a significant 6‐month decrease in problematic behaviors together with an increase in self‐efficacy and life skills (Haug et al, 2020).…”

“…Second, most interventions focused on a single component, such as generalized Internet addiction or online gambling, and interventions that considered multiple‐risky online behaviors or multiple online addictive behaviors are limited (Throuvala et al, 2019; Xu et al, 2021). Therefore, considering specific subtypes of online addictive behaviors could be more meaningful, due to the large heterogeneity of online addictive problems (e.g., Romero Saletti et al, 2021; Spilkova et al, 2017). In terms of outcomes, most previous interventions considered the negative consequences of problematic online behaviors for youths, and a very limited number of them also encompass the promotion of positive strategies and resources (Cañas & Estévez, 2021; Throuvala et al, 2019).…”

Multiple Health Behavior Programs in School Settings: Strategies to Promote Transfer-of-Learning Through Life Skills Education

“…Schools may then choose to implement a new prevention program that addresses the problem, but this may further increase an overlap in content areas across potentially similar interventions. For example, in recent years, new interventions have been developed to prevent youth gambling (4), reduce problem internet use (5), and promote mindful meditation (6), yet when new programs are adopted and implemented there may be little consideration given to whether the new content overlaps with existing school programming. Also, most evidence-based programs focus on specific health domains and their evaluations typically focus only on those specific behavioral outcomes.…”