South Middlesex Times

As the United States government considers major policy decisions regarding social media, including a potential forced sale of TikTok and new legislation to protect young users, the comprehensiveness of research informing these decisions faces scrutiny.

A 2024 report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) on “Social Media and Adolescent Health” may help shape those decisions, but a Rutgers Health expert believes the panel needed to include more public health experts and consider more study results.

Jon-Patrick Allem, an associate professor at the Rutgers School of Public Health, discussed the NASEM report in a recent American Journal of Public Health editorial. He laid out his ideas for improvement with Rutgers Today.

"The NASEM appointed only one person from a school of public health to this committee. This is a significant oversight because public health scholars have a rich history of studying how private sector activities, including those of social media companies, affect people's health," Allem stated.

He also expressed concern that two experts on the committee have received industry funding. "These conflicts of interest can reduce the integrity of the committee report. Those trained in public health, especially in areas like tobacco control and alcohol prevention, understand the importance of qualifying research from industry-funded scientists."

Allem criticized the narrow focus on screen time and mental health outcomes. "Many studies included in the report use blunt measures of social media use, generally time spent on platforms, without considering the specific content users view. The outcomes are usually limited to mental health issues such as depression and anxiety."

"This approach misses crucial aspects of how social media affects adolescent health," he added. "Time alone doesn't tell us much – one could spend hours watching educational videos or hours watching content that glamorizes substance use. These experiences would have very different impacts, but studies measuring only time on social media would treat them equally."

Allem pointed out that several critical pieces of evidence were overlooked by the report. "The report overlooked several critical pieces of evidence, particularly studies on how specific content on social media platforms can affect offline attitudes and behaviors in young people." He cited meta-analyses showing associations between exposure to pro-alcohol content on social media and offline alcohol use among adolescents.

"These content-focused studies provide crucial insights into how social media influences adolescent behavior beyond just mental health outcomes," Allem noted. "By omitting this evidence, the report fails to provide a comprehensive assessment of the relationship between social media and adolescent health."

Looking forward, Allem called for more transparency from social media companies regarding their content moderation guidelines. "First, we need more transparency from social media companies. They should be required to disclose the materials that guide content moderation."

He also advocated for a broader approach to studying social media's impact on adolescent health. "We need a broader, more holistic approach to studying social media's impact on adolescent health," he said.

Policymakers should consider all ways in which social media can impact adolescent health when crafting future policies. "Policymakers need to consider the full range of ways social media can impact adolescent health," Allem emphasized.

"We should also fund comprehensive, interdisciplinary research on social media's impact on adolescent health," he concluded. "This research should inform evidence-based policies that can effectively protect young people while still allowing for the potential benefits of social media use."

By taking these steps, Allem believes it is possible to develop a more nuanced and effective approach to regulating social media and protecting adolescent health in the digital age.