This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Background: The increasing prevalence of digital technology has transformed social interactions, particularly among youth. While technology enhances connectivity, it also disrupts interpersonal relationships–a phenomenon known as technoference. Despite extensive research on self-reported experiences of technoference, limited studies explore this issue from the perspective of mental health professionals, who provide direct interventions for problematic technology use. Objective: This study explores mental health professionals’ perspectives on how technology affects youth interpersonal relationships and examines potential intervention strategies to address problematic technology use. Methodology: A qualitative study using in-depth individual interviews was conducted with 14 mental health professionals, including psychiatric social workers, clinical psychologists, and psychiatrists. Participants were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling. Data were analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis framework, with Atlas.ti software for coding and organization. Results: Four major themes emerged: motivations for technology use, interpersonal consequences, mental health concerns, and intervention strategies. Findings suggest that technoference weakens emotional bonds, fosters communication breakdowns, and contributes to mental health challenges such as digital addiction and anxiety. Mental health professionals emphasize the need for structured interventions, including parental guidance, school-based digital literacy initiatives, and policy regulations on technology use. Conclusion: This study underscores the complex interplay between digital engagement, interpersonal relationships, and mental health outcomes. Future research should incorporate triangulation methods, including youth and parental perspectives, to validate and expand upon these findings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Neeraj et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: