Social media and other technologies are reshaping communication and health.

This review addresses the relationship between social media use, behavioural health conditions and psychological well-being for youth aged <25 years.

A scoping review of 11 literature databases from 2000 to 2020 explored research studies in youth in five areas: clinical depression and anxiety, quantitative use, social media mode, engagement and qualitative dimensions and health and well-being.

Out of 2820 potential literature references, 140 met the inclusion criteria. The foci were clinical depression and anxiety disorders (n = 78), clinical challenges (e.g. suicidal ideation, cyberbullying) (n = 34) and psychological well-being (n = 28). Most studies focused on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube. Few studies are longitudinal in design (n = 26), had comparison groups (n = 27), were randomised controlled trials (n = 3) or used structured assessments (n = 4). Few focused on different youth and sociodemographic populations, particularly for low-income, equity-seeking and deserving populations. Studies examined association (n = 120; 85.7%), mediating (n = 16; 11.4%) and causal (n = 4; 2.9%) relationships. Prospective, longitudinal studies of depression and anxiety appear to indicate that shorter use (≤3 h/day) and purposeful engagement is associated with better mood and psychological well-being. Depression may predict social media use and reduce perception of support. Findings provide families, teachers and providers ways to engage youth.

Research opportunities include clinical outcomes from functional perspective on a health continuum, diverse youth and sociodemographic populations, methodology, intervention and privacy issues. More longitudinal studies, comparison designs and effectiveness approaches are also needed. Health systems face clinical, training and professional development challenges.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the use of telemedicine as a way to reduce COVID-19 infections was noted and consequently deregulated. However, the degree of telemedicine regulation varies from country to country, which may alter the widespread use of telemedicine. This study aimed to clarify the telepsychiatry regulations for each collaborating country/region before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

We used snowball sampling within a global network of international telepsychiatry experts. Thirty collaborators from 17 different countries/regions responded to a questionnaire on barriers to the use and implementation of telepsychiatric care, including policy factors such as regulations and reimbursement at the end of 2019 and as of May 2020.

Thirteen of 17 regions reported a relaxation of regulations due to the pandemic; consequently, all regions surveyed stated that telepsychiatry was now possible within their public healthcare systems. In some regions, restrictions on prescription medications allowed via telepsychiatry were eased, but in 11 of the 17 regions, there were still restrictions on prescribing medications via telepsychiatry. Lower insurance reimbursement amounts for telepsychiatry consultations v. in-person consultations were reevaluated in four regions, and consequently, in 15 regions telepsychiatry services were reimbursed at the same rate (or higher) than in-person consultations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Our results confirm that, due to COVID-19, the majority of countries surveyed are altering telemedicine regulations that had previously restricted the spread of telemedicine. These findings provide information that could guide future policy and regulatory decisions, which facilitate greater scale and spread of telepsychiatry globally.