Digital Health Risks: Global Experts Urge Action

The rapid growth of digital health, digital media, and digital tech is creating new opportunities for people around the world, but it is also raising serious concerns about public digital health risks. A new three-paper Series published in The Lancet, authored by 13 global experts, highlights the need for stronger and more coordinated governance of digital systems.

The experts emphasize that the health and online safety of children and young people should become an immediate global policy priority. While digital technology can improve access to information, communication, and health services, poorly designed systems can also create risks that deserve greater attention.

“Use of digital media is now woven into the fabric of childhood and life as a young adult. Governments have let technology companies write their own rules, leading to business models built to capture attention and collect data, with health treated as an afterthought,” says Series chair Professor Ilona Kickbusch, Digital Transformations for Health Lab (DTH-Lab) (Switzerland). “The evidence linking problematic digital media use to poorer mental health, sleep and physical activity, although not conclusive, justifies coordinated, global action. With the right governance, a healthier digital world for young people is possible, one that allows them to benefit from online opportunities without substantial risk of harm to health.”

Evidence of Digital Media Harms Supports Immediate Public Health Action

Digital media covers the content people view, create, and share online. It includes not only the content itself but also the platforms that deliver it and the devices people use to access it.

A new umbrella review conducted for the Series examined nine million people under the age of 25 across 121 reviews. The findings show consistent associations between problematic digital media use and several adverse health outcomes among children, adolescents, and young adults.

The Series defines problematic digital media use as addiction-like patterns rather than simply measuring the amount of time someone spends online. The review found links between problematic use and an increased risk of common mental health problems, sleep difficulties, and lower levels of physical activity.

However, digital technology is not associated only with negative outcomes. The review also identified some potentially positive health connections, including an association between moderate digital media use and improved wellbeing. Active video game use was also associated with higher wellbeing and healthier lifestyles.

The researchers stress that the evidence for both the potential harms and benefits remains limited:

“The associations between problematic digital media use and health harms identified in our review are modest in size and rest on low-certainty evidence that cannot establish cause and effect. Meanwhile, the most valuable data on how these platforms actually affect users are hidden within technology companies, limiting independent scrutiny and slowing scientific progress,” says Series author Louise Holly, DTH-Lab (UK). “A key recommendation of our Series is that governments should require technology companies to share data on how their features affect users’ health with vetted public-interest researchers and provide the legal and technical infrastructure to make that possible.”

Potential Population-Level Impact of Screen Use

The researchers also attempted to demonstrate how relatively small increases in individual health risks could become significant when applied across entire populations.

Their estimates suggest that spending more than two hours each day on screens could potentially be associated with approximately 2.8 million healthy years of life lost to depression and 240,000 healthy years lost to obesity worldwide every year.

The authors emphasize that these figures are illustrative rather than precise measurements because the available evidence has a low level of certainty.

“Our global projections of how many healthy years could be lost to depression and obesity linked to excessive screen time are intended to be illustrative of the possible scale of harm. They should not be taken as an accurate measurement of harm as, although they are based on the best available research, the certainty of the evidence is low. More research is needed to provide accurate estimates of health impacts at the population level.”

Dr. Falk Müller-Riemenschneider, Author, National University of Singapore

How Business Models and Digital Tech Design Influence Health

The Series argues that today’s digital environment is heavily influenced by large international technology companies. According to the researchers, decades of limited regulation and self-regulation have allowed commercial interests to play a major role in shaping how people interact with digital technology.

Many online platforms are built around increasing user engagement and collecting personal data. Features such as infinite scrolling, auto play, and personalized recommendation systems can encourage people to spend more time on platforms.

“Most digital platforms are designed by companies to capture attention and collect data, not to protect health: features such as infinite scroll, auto play and personalised recommendation feeds are deliberate design choices, not simply a matter of individual self-control,” says author Dr Jay Shaw, University of Toronto (Canada). “We need much more research into how these specific design choices in digital media influence the way people use the technology, instead of only investigating the impact of how long people spend online.”

The researchers believe greater attention should be given to how individual features within digital tech platforms affect users, rather than focusing only on the number of hours people spend online.

Corporate Influence and the Need for Stronger Governance

The Series also raises concerns about the influence technology companies can have on regulation. The authors argue that some companies use strategies that can delay or weaken regulatory responses when research indicates that their products may pose health risks.

“Technology companies are borrowing a playbook well known from tobacco and fossil fuels: manufacture doubt, discredit critics, frame regulation as a threat to freedom. A public health approach counters this by looking at what the evidence suggests about harm across the whole population, not just what any single case can tell us,” says author Professor Barbara Prainsack, University of Vienna (Austria). “Seen that way, good regulation isn’t the enemy of innovation – it’s a driver of good innovation, channel ling it toward safety and trust. And when regulation is missing, it doesn’t mean that a technology is ungoverned; it just means that companies set the rules instead of public policy.”

A stronger governance framework could therefore help ensure that innovation in digital health and digital technology develops alongside appropriate safeguards for users.

Why a Single Solution Is Not Enough

The Series concludes that no single policy measure, including age restrictions, can completely address the potential health risks associated with digital media and digital tech.

Instead, the experts recommend coordinated action at company, national, and international levels.

Key recommendations include:

• Technology companies should assess new products and features for potential health risks before releasing them.
• Companies should share relevant data about how their products and features affect users’ health with approved public-interest researchers.
• The World Health Organization (WHO) should consider establishing a global governance treaty with baseline standards for digital systems.
• A dedicated international organization should monitor the potential impact of AI and digital technology on children and young people.

The Series also identifies litigation as another possible way to increase accountability among technology companies.

“Legal action can do something regulation often cannot: compel companies to disclose internal documents and shift the public conversation about who is responsible for harm. However, litigation is not a substitute for regulation and should be considered as one route to accountability among several, not the answer on its own.”

Young People Should Have a Voice in Digital Health Risks Policy

The research also included input from a Youth Advisory Group made up of six young adults aged 23–30. The group helped researchers understand aspects of digital technology and online life that may not be fully captured through existing research.

Youth Advisory Group member Dr Salman Fitrat Khan emphasizes that many of the potential risks created by digital systems can be addressed through better governance and greater involvement from young people.

“The health risks and harms associated with digital systems are preventable. With better governance and by empowering citizens – especially young people – to co-shape digital systems around them, the online world can give us connection, information and opportunities without putting our health at risk. Governments shouldn’t wait for ‘perfect’ evidence before acting for our generation and the ones coming after us.”

Building a Safer Future for Digital Health Risk

The growing role of digital health, digital media, and digital tech means that governments, technology companies, researchers, and communities will need to work together to create safer digital environments.

Technology can provide significant benefits, from improving access to health information to supporting communication and wellbeing. However, the experts argue that innovation should be accompanied by stronger transparency, independent research, responsible design, and effective regulation.

A coordinated approach could help ensure that the future of digital technology delivers its benefits while reducing avoidable risks to public health, particularly for children, adolescents, and young adults.

Journal reference:
Shaw, J., et al. (2026). The digital determinants of health: a new era for global public health. The Lancet. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(26)01292-4.