What Does Digital Well-Being Mean for School Development? A Theoretical Review with Perspectives on Digital Inequality

Abstract

As digital transformation progresses, schools are increasingly confronted with psychosocial challenges such as technostress, digital overload, and unequal participation in digital (learning) environments. This article investigates the conceptual relevance of digital well-being for school development, particularly in relation to social inequality. Despite growing attention, the term remains theoretically underdefined in educational research—a gap addressed through a theory-driven review. Drawing on a systematic search, 25 key studies were analyzed for their conceptual understanding and refinement of digital well-being, with a focus on educational relevance. Findings suggest that digital well-being constitutes a multidimensional state shaped by individual, media-related, and socio-structural factors. It emerges when individuals are able to successfully manage the demands of digital environments and is closely linked to digital inequality—particularly in terms of access, usage practices, and the resulting opportunities for participation and health promotion. Since the institutional role of schools has thus far received limited attention, this article shifts the focus toward schools as key arenas for negotiating digital norms and practices and calls for an equity-sensitive and health-conscious perspective on school development in the context of digitalization. In doing so, digital well-being is repositioned as a pedagogical cross-cutting issue that requires coordinated efforts across all levels of the education system, highlighting that equitable digital transformation in schools depends on a critical reflection of power asymmetries within society and educational institutions. The article concludes by advocating for the systematic integration of digital well-being into school development processes as a way to support inclusive digital participation and to foster a health-oriented digital school culture.

1. Introduction: Addressing Digital Well-Being in Schools

For several years now, the psychosocial well-being of school stakeholders has become a growing focus in educational science and education policy discourse (e.g., Jisc, 2024; KMK, 2024; Dadaczynski, 2024; Paschke & Thomasius, 2024; Fraundorfer, 2021; Skinner et al., 2019). The increasing integration of digital media into society and schools requires both a productive engagement with digital media in everyday life and a recurring reassessment of established routines. As a result, schools are constantly challenged to deal with digital strains among teachers and problematic media use among children and young people.

Recent research on demands associated with digital media use in educational contexts (e.g., Wang et al., 2023; Li & Wang, 2021; Özgür, 2020; Annemann et al., 2024; Gradl, 2022; Mußmann et al., 2021; Mauss, 2020; Sommer, 2020; and Schmechtig et al., 2020) highlights the need for a health-promoting approach to digitalization in everyday school life. Dealing with digital media is both an institutional and individual task. On the one hand, schools need to establish structures that enable a reflective and health-conscious engagement with digital technologies. On the other hand, for students and teachers, finding their way in an increasingly digitalized environment is an individual challenge that represents a lifelong developmental task and a central component of school-based health prevention. Supporting students in developing autonomous media use is an essential prerequisite for promoting reflective and responsible participation in a digitalized society.

In this context, the term digital well-being is increasingly used as a frame of reference for related issues—going far beyond questions of media use regulation through screen time management or the supposedly correct apps for monitoring and controlling digital behavior—although its meaning still requires conceptual clarification. As Burr et al. (2020, p. 2313) emphasize, digital technologies fundamentally reshape how we relate to “ourselves, each other, and our environment.” In this sense, digital well-being is closely linked to the broader question of what supports human flourishing in a digital society—raising ethical and also educational questions (Burr et al., 2020). A more operational perspective is provided by the Jisc Digital Capabilities Framework, which describes digital well-being as “the impact of using digital devices, tools, services and systems on you as a person” (Jisc, 2024). It is considered a multidimensional and context-sensitive construct that must be understood from individual and societal or organizational perspectives (Jisc, 2024). As will become evident throughout this paper, the ethical dimension of digital well-being is closely connected to the issue of digital inequality. Access to digital technologies is a basic condition for navigating and participating in a digitized world. However, numerous national and international studies show that such access is unequally distributed and strongly influenced by socio-structural factors. Individuals from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds are therefore more frequently affected by digital exclusion than those from more privileged social groups. Theoretically, this digital divide is conceptualized in terms of three levels (e.g., van Dijk, 2020): material and infrastructural access (first-level digital divide), differences in usage patterns and digital skills (second-level digital divide), and the resulting outcomes (third-level digital divide), which include consequences on well-being (Helsper, 2021).

Schools, as institutions where broader societal structures and inequalities are reflected and reproduced, are directly confronted with these disparities. They thus face the critical task of ensuring that everyone—regardless of background—has equal opportunities to access and use digital technologies for personal development, social participation, and orientation in a digitized world. Against this backdrop, it becomes necessary to examine how the evolving construct of digital well-being (see e.g., Vanden Abeele & Nguyen, 2022) is conceptualized in social science discourse and what relevance it holds for school development—particularly in relation to health promotion and social justice. Therefore, this review explores the central question: To what extent is the theoretical construct of digital well-being elaborated and considered in relation to the current challenges of health-promoting technology integration and the sustainable design of digitalization in schools?

To address this research question, the study follows the methodology of a Theoretical Review as outlined by Webster and Watson (2002), which is introduced in more detail in Section 2. The review approach enables a systematic search strategy and concept-centered analysis of relevant literature with the aim of reconstructing the key terms and theoretical foundations of the construct of digital well-being. Section 3 presents and discusses the results of this review as a comprehensive reconstruction of the theoretical construct. The synthesis is structured along analytical categories that reflect recurring themes in the literature and conceptually grounded priorities defined by the authors. The analysis also identifies a missing link to educational research. Section 4 builds on this foundation by connecting digital well-being, social inequality, and school development—a perspective still underrepresented in current research or primarily addressed at the level of classroom instruction. The chapter offers a conceptual and practice-oriented transfer by situating digital well-being within the broader context of school development. Drawing on the five-dimensional model of digitalization-related school development by Eickelmann and Gerick (2017), which has become a widely used framework in the German-speaking research community, this chapter outlines implications addressed to school-based practitioners, school leaders, and education policy stakeholders. Schools are positioned as active agents in the negotiation of digital norms and practices. Effective strategies, the article argues, must go beyond individual behavior and consider the broader interplay of social expectations, media environments, and organizational structures that shape digital experiences. This includes critically reflecting on structural inequalities and power dynamics, and developing school-wide frameworks that support health-oriented, inclusive, and participatory approaches to digitalization. Section 5 concludes with a critical reflection on the methodological approach and discusses the conceptual contribution of the review. It highlights digital well-being as a multi-level and equity-relevant concern for future educational research and school development, aiming to stimulate a stronger education-focused discourse on the role of schools in this context.

2. Materials and Methods

The methodology of this paper follows the Theoretical Review approach as described by Webster and Watson (2002). This method is specifically designed to consolidate key theoretical concepts under a central research question, identify gaps, establish theoretical connections, and open new research perspectives (Webster & Watson, 2002). The objective is therefore not merely to provide a systematic overview of various research findings on digital well-being, but rather to create a coherent, conceptual structuring of existing theoretical models and foundational contributions (Webster & Watson, 2002). The review thus ensures a consistent synthesis and critical discussion of how the construct of digital well-being is understood in the social sciences.

The first step involves a systematic literature search, focusing on sources that contribute to the theoretical conceptualization of digital well-being. A concept matrix supports the identification and synthesis of common patterns, categories, and propositions across different conceptual approaches. Based on this synthesis, the review performs a targeted conceptual transfer into the field of school development. This final step allows for a structured discussion of how the construct of digital well-being can be meaningfully related to school-level transformation processes, and to what extent theoretical implications emerge for educational research and practice.

2.1. From References to Citations: Forward and Backward Search

Webster and Watson (2002) recommend a modified technique of systematic search for identifying relevant sources, which this study also follows. The first step aligns with the typical approach of systematic literature searches. Using an iterative process, a search string is constructed with the German and English keywords: [digital* AND wellbeing] OR [digital* AND well-being] OR [digital* AND “well being”] OR [digital* AND Wohlbefinden]. This search string is applied across the databases FIS Bildung (https://www.fachportal-paedagogik.de, accessed on 16 July 2025), ERIC (https://eric.ed.gov/, accessed on 16 July 2025), SCOPUS (https://www.scopus.com, accessed on 16 July 2025) and ECON BIZ (https://www.econbiz.de/, accessed on 16 July 2025) with different filters to systematically search for scholarly sources in the first quarter of 2025. The main focus is on sources that theoretically model and refine the construct of digital well-being within social science discourse. Since three of the four databases are already specialized in certain areas of the social sciences, only the search on SCOPUS is further restricted to the social sciences category. Additionally, SCOPUS applies the filters “author, title, keywords”, “English language”, “German language” and the keywords “wellbeing”, “well being” and “well-being”, resulting in 563 search hits. The keyword search in FIS Bildung and ERIC yields 65 search hits, while the search in ECON BIZ without additional filters results in 25 hits. The literature is managed using Citavi 7 reference management software, which, due to its system properties, processes a total of 708 parent and child documents (if articles from edited collections are added to a Citavi-project, the program automatically imports the corresponding parent documents, i.e., the edited collections themselves) from the 653 search hits. After removing duplicates, 706 sources remain for title and abstract screening, of which 33 are deemed suitable for full-text review.

Studies that examine well-being in non-digital contexts, that only address digital well-being indirectly as a concept, or that focus mainly on digital self-control tools, technology design, or digital detox were excluded. Ultimately, sixteen studies—both theoretical and empirical—were included. These contributions focus on defining and conceptualizing digital well-being or examine overarching influencing factors and implications that help to refine and clarify the construct. In addition, studies were included that transfer the construct of digital well-being to general education contexts and that address questions of inequality within these domains. As a result, a total of sixteen sources were included after full-text screening.

To ensure a comprehensive literature list, the method includes a supplementary forward search in citation databases. Since the previously included sources are exclusively based on the SCOPUS search, the forward search can also be conducted in SCOPUS. This process not only identifies which of the previously included sources are the most cited but also allows for the inclusion of nine additional contributions, resulting in a total of 25 sources analyzed in the study. An overview of the included literature, differentiated by search strategy, is provided in

Table 1. Results of backward and forward search.

Literature Sources via Backward Search	Citations on SCOPUS	Cited by the Following Included Literature Sources	Literature Sources via Forward Search
Vanden Abeele (2021). Digital Wellbeing as a Dynamic Construct.	199	(Büchi, 2021; Roy, 2022; Gennari et al., 2023; Gui et al., 2023; Meier, 2022)	Vanden Abeele and Nguyen (2022). Digital well-being in an age of mobile connectivity: An introduction to the Special Issue. Valasek (2022). Disciplining the akratic user: Constructing digital (un)wellness. Radtke et al. (2022). Digital detox: An effective solution in the smartphone era? A systematic literature review. Rosenberg and Vogelman-Natan (2022). The (other) two percent also matter: The construction of mobile phone refusers. Islambouli et al. (2024). Understanding Digital Wellbeing Through Smartphone Usage Intentions and Regrettable Patterns Nguyen et al. (2024). Everyday disconnection experiences: Exploring people’s understanding of digital well-being and management of digital media use Vanden Abeele et al. (2022). Drug, demon, or donut? Theorizing the relationship between social media use, digital well-being and digital disconnection. Reinecke et al. (2022). Self-regulation as a key boundary condition in the relationship between social media use and well-being.
Gui et al. (2017). “Digital Well-Being”. Developing a New Theoretical Tool For Media Literacy Research.	95	(Büchi, 2021; Büchi et al., 2018, 2019; Feerrar, 2022; Gui & Büchi, 2021; Roy, 2022; Valasek, 2022; Vanden Abeele & Nguyen, 2022; Vanden Abeele, 2021; Islambouli et al., 2024; Gui et al., 2023; Nguyen & Hargittai, 2024; Nguyen et al., 2024; Islambouli et al., 2024)	–
Gui and Büchi (2021). From Use to Overuse: Digital Inequality in the Age of Communication Abundance.	74	(Büchi & Hargittai, 2022; Büchi et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2024; Nguyen & Hargittai, 2024; Büchi & Hargittai, 2022; Valasek, 2022)	–
Büchi (2021). Digital Well-Being Theory and Research.	66	(Prinsloo et al., 2024; Gennari et al., 2023; Vanden Abeele & Nguyen, 2022; Büchi & Hargittai, 2022; Nguyen et al., 2024)	Mayiwar et al. (2024). Determinants of digital well-being.
Büchi et al. (2019). Digital Overuse and Subjective Well-Being in a Digitized Society.	60	(Büchi, 2021; Roy, 2022; Vanden Abeele, 2021; Nguyen et al., 2024; Nguyen & Hargittai, 2024)	–
Meier (2022). Studying problems, not problematic usage: Do mobile checking habits increase procrastination and decrease well-being?	45	(Nguyen & Hargittai, 2024; Vanden Abeele & Nguyen, 2022; Islambouli et al., 2024; Nguyen & Hargittai, 2024; Vanden Abeele et al., 2022; Reinecke et al., 2022)	–
Büchi et al. (2018). How Social Well-Being is Affected by Digital Inequalities.	39	(Büchi, 2021; Büchi & Hargittai, 2022; Büchi et al., 2019)	–
Schneider et al. (2022). How and when do mobile media demands impact wellbeing? Explicating the Integrative Model of Mobile Media Use and Need Experiences (IM3UNE).	33	(Gui et al., 2023; Vanden Abeele et al., 2022; Vanden Abeele & Nguyen, 2022)	–
Gui et al. (2023). Mobile media education as a tool to reduce problematic smartphone use: Results of a randomised impact evaluation.	23	–	–
Gennari et al. (2023). Design for social digital well-being with young generations: Engage them and make them reflect.	21	–	–
Büchi and Hargittai (2022). A Need for Considering Digital Inequality When Studying Social Media Use and Well-Being.	16	–	–
Dennis (2021). Digital well-being under pandemic conditions: catalysing a theory of online flourishing.	16	(Vanden Abeele & Nguyen, 2022)	–
Nguyen and Hargittai (2024). Digital disconnection, digital inequality, and subjective well-being: a mobile experience sampling study.	3	–	–
Prinsloo et al. (2024). Vulnerable student digital well-being in AI-powered educational decision support systems (AI-EDSS) in higher education.	2	–	–
Feerrar (2022). Bringing digital well-being into the heart of digital media literacies.	1	–	–
Roy (2022). Deconstructing the notion of “digital wellbeing” through a postmodern lens.	–	–	–

.

The table illustrates the extent to which the sources included from the backward search reference each other. Although no definitive claims can be made about the academic relevance of each contribution, some patterns suggest which studies have gained particular visibility or influence in the field. These sources serve as the starting point for the subsequent analysis.

2.2. Patterns and Propositions: A Concept-Centric Analysis

The approach by Webster and Watson (2002) is also characterized by concept-centered analysis, meaning that the objective is not merely to summarize and systematically present various authors but to conduct a thorough examination of key concepts. This is achieved through the use of a concept matrix (see Appendix A), a recommended tool to support the transition from an author-centric to a concept-centric approach. After completing the reading of the included contributions, it enables a structured categorization of relevant concepts. In our review, we use the concept matrix to identify and group central patterns and propositions, to reveal potential conceptual gaps in the literature, and as a guiding framework for developing a systematic structure for presenting results and conducting conceptual synthesis. The analytical categories were defined based on the questions primarily addressed in the literature—concerning the emergence of digital pressure, as well as the competencies and strategies required to manage it. In addition, aspects related to social inequality and the educational context were incorporated. The resulting concepts form the analytical focus of this review and are further differentiated into “units of analysis” (Webster & Watson, 2002, p. 17), which we define along individual, socio-structural, and media-related factors. These analytical units serve as a heuristic framework for mapping and categorizing the conceptual foci within the selected literature. The following section consolidates the findings in order to highlight and discuss the current understanding of digital well-being in the social science discourse—as it emerges from the analytical scope of this review.

3. What Does Digital Well-Being Mean?

Digital well-being emerges as a theoretical construct that describes a dynamic interplay (Vanden Abeele, 2021) between individual abilities and evaluations of digital practices, media structures and mechanisms, as well as social norms, contexts, and cultural influences (Gui et al., 2017; Vanden Abeele, 2021; Büchi, 2021). This interplay takes place within what Hepp (2016), drawing on the concept of “deep mediatization of culture and society” (Hepp, 2016, p. 277), describes as an era in which digital media fundamentally shape social life. Digital well-being aims to preserve and promote both hedonic happiness and eudaimonic fulfilment, as well as to provide functional support while minimizing loss of control (Vanden Abeele, 2021). In doing so, it distinguishes itself from merely avoiding technostress—a concept originally modeled by Tarafdar et al. (2007)—or unhealthy and pathological forms of media use like Gaming Disorder or Social Media Disorder. Instead, it represents an active pursuit of a “sense of comfort, safety, satisfaction and fulfilment” (Gui et al., 2017, p. 166), which is continuously negotiated within a social environment “where digital media are omnipresent” (Büchi, 2021, p. 1). Thus, digital well-being is not a static state but is subject to context-dependent fluctuations, resulting in a dynamic, multidimensional negotiation process between the benefits and challenges of digital media use (Vanden Abeele, 2021; Büchi, 2021)—a process that must be constantly adjusted and balanced.

3.1. Environment

To begin the conceptual exploration of digital well-being in more depth, this section focuses on the digital environment and its external influences on perception, behavior, and everyday routines. It aims to show how digital well-being is shaped not only by individual capacities but also by the structural conditions of digital media environments that users must continuously navigate. The digital environment is characterized by an overwhelming abundance of choices that demands constant navigation between content and activities (Gui et al., 2017). This is further intensified by “information overload” (Gui et al., 2017, p. 159)—the constant influx of stimuli that can exceed users’ processing capacities—and the tendency toward “fragmentation of daily time” (Gui et al., 2017, p. 168), meaning the repeated interruption and splitting of attention and routines into brief, scattered moments, making it increasingly difficult to maintain structured routines (Gui et al., 2017). This constant exposure to digital stimuli, coupled with a diminishing sense of structure, may increase users’ vulnerability. Moreover, the ease of switching between tasks and the design of digital platforms—optimized to maximize user engagement—contribute to fragmented attention and a persistent sense of temporal disorientation (Gui et al., 2017).

Taking a deeper look at the media level, we see that media architectures employ “addictive design” (Vanden Abeele, 2021, p. 944), manipulative design patterns (also «dark patterns»), and “reward infrastructure” (Vanden Abeele, 2021, p. 940) to encourage continuous use (see also Monge Roffarello & De Russis, 2023). These design patterns are widespread in social media and gaming apps that are popular among children and adolescents (Kammerl, 2024). While digital media can foster autonomy, self-determination, social interaction, and personal development, these potentials are simultaneously constrained by such mechanisms embedded in digital architectures—creating a tension described as the “Mobile Connectivity Paradox” (Vanden Abeele, 2021, p. 934). These architectural strategies not only affect user behavior in general, but contribute to a digital climate in which social expectations and self-perceptions are deeply entangled with platform dynamics.

This interconnection between technological design and broader socio-structural patterns—namely the social norms, institutional contexts, and societal conditions that shape digital practices across different groups—becomes especially apparent when considering processes of boundary dissolution. For example, the “convergence of different activities in the same device” (Gui et al., 2017, p. 162) can lead to a blurring of boundaries between work, leisure, and social interaction—a phenomenon that has also been described in educational contexts (cf. Dehmel et al., 2023). These conditions are not limited to specific times but persist “throughout the day” (Gui et al., 2017, p. 162), contributing to the constant availability of digital technologies (Gui et al., 2017). This dissolution of boundaries is not only technical but also affects social and normative distinctions, potentially leading to what Vanden Abeele (2021, p. 945) refers to as “availability stress”, which is a reaction to constant expectations of availability, reflecting how social norms and media architectures intersect and influence well-being. A related and well-known phenomenon, particularly relevant for children and adolescents, is the Fear of Missing Out (FoMO) (D’Lima & Higgins, 2021) which refers to the anxiety that others might be having rewarding experiences from which one is absent. FoMO combines a desire to participate as well as a pressure to stay involved. These phenomena illustrate a symptomatic experience that can be situated within the broader theoretical concept of Social Digital Pressure (SDP) as described by Büchi et al. (2019, p. 4). SDP can stem from explicit expectations, such as peers’ demands for digital availability, but it can also be influenced by broader societal expectations that require individuals to function digitally and demonstrate digital competence (Büchi et al., 2019, p. 4). Such expectations—whether implicit or explicit—are often reflected in institutional environments like schools, where digital competence becomes both a performance marker and a social prerequisite.

The manifestation of such phenomena is not solely determined by social frameworks—such as expectations, norms, and institutional contexts—but also strongly depends on the individual perception and appraisal of these social and media-related influences. In this regard, the concept of “Perceived Digital Overuse” (PDO) (Büchi et al., 2019, p. 2) becomes particularly relevant. PDO describes the perceived discrepancy between desired and actual internet use (Büchi et al., 2019, p. 2; Gui & Büchi, 2021, p. 5f). This is not an objective measurement but a subjective perception (Büchi et al., 2019) that is positively correlated with SDP (Büchi et al., 2019, p. 7). The relevance of individual perception and appraisal of digital influences for digital well-being will be revisited later in this section.

When digital well-being is considered in relation to broader well-being concepts, its close interrelation between individual and social dimensions becomes evident. This highlights that a reduction of the concept to individual aspects alone—such as effective screen time management—falls short. It can be described “as a shorthand term for the maintenance of SWB [Subjective Well-Being] in a social environment characterized by the digitization of all life domains and the constant abundance of digital information and communication options as a default” (Büchi et al., 2019, p. 9). Thus, digital well-being is conceptually linked to subjective components of well-being, such as individual happiness and life satisfaction—as aspects of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being (e.g., Büchi et al., 2019)—as well as social aspects, such as the “sense of belongingness” (Büchi et al., 2018, p. 3694) to the information society which turns out to be a “key resource of social well-being (Social well-being is a component of eudaimonic well-being, which—alongside hedonic well-being—constitutes the broader concept of subjective well-being (Büchi et al., 2018, p. 3689f). Social well-being reflects the individual’s appraisal of their functioning in society and includes aspects such as social integration, contribution, coherence, actualization, and acceptance (Keyes, 1998; see also Büchi et al., 2018, p. 3690)” (Büchi et al., 2018, p. 3698).

So far, it has become clear that the digital environment, in the context of digital well-being, cannot be understood merely as a passive backdrop to media use. Rather, it consists of a tightly interwoven interplay of multidimensional factors: technological architectures, social norms, and individual experiences. This complex configuration not only shapes media use practices but also influences the perception of digital strain and the formation and negotiation of social expectations—particularly within school settings, where these dynamics often converge with particular intensity. Such conditions impact how individuals experience and regulate their digital practices. At the core of pathological use, however, lies the perceived inability to control the type and extent of usage, which can be caused not only by exogenous factors but also by endogenous resources. While adolescents often have underdeveloped self-regulation skills, older adults are hindered in their effective use of digital media by limited digital competencies. These insights highlight that addressing the challenges of digital media use requires not only individual coping strategies, but also a critical awareness of the structural conditions that shape digital experiences.

3.2. Intervention

This brings into focus different approaches that conceptualize how individuals can actively cope with the demands of a digitized environment in order to foster digital well-being. Two key perspectives in this regard are the pathogenic and salutogenic, which offer different approaches to assessing digital media use. A pathogenic perspective focuses on avoiding technostress and the negative consequences of excessive and problematic media use, while a salutogenic perspective acknowledges the inevitability of digital demands in a deeply mediated environment and emphasizes their active management (Schneider et al., 2022). While the pathogenic view remains relevant, digital well-being seems to be more closely aligned with the salutogenic perspective. It marks a shift away from illness- and symptom-centered models toward a focus on promoting and maintaining well-being in digital life contexts. Building on this orientation, we further elaborate on a point already introduced in the previous section, that “mobile media use is neither good nor bad per se” (Schneider et al., 2022, p. 253)—its impact depends on individual appraisal processes (Schneider et al., 2022). “Mindfulness, self-control and meaningfulness” (Schneider et al., 2022) can be named as factors that influence how digital demands are perceived and managed; the stronger these factors, the greater the so called “Sense of Coherence” (Schneider et al., 2022), which enhances self-efficacy and mobilizes resources for digital well-being (Schneider et al., 2022).

Following on from these factors, two particularly relevant intervention strategies at the individual level can be distinguished: self-control and self-regulation, although these terms seem to be often used interchangeably when it comes to adjusting digital usage patterns towards a desired state and are considered crucial for digital well-being. Recent findings highlight that self-control and digital competence play a central role in this process, especially when subjectively experienced rather than objectively measurable (Mayiwar et al., 2024). Reinecke et al. (2022) highlight that the goal is not merely to avoid digital strains but to actively shape and establish desired media usage practices. This entails an expansion of digital skills to include specific “digital well-being skills” (Gui et al., 2017, p. 155), which go beyond basic self-regulation due to the high level of demands posed by the digital environment (Gui et al., 2017). These skills—which are particularly relevant for learners in school environments, where cognitive demands, social pressure, and platform exposure intersect—include “attentional and strategic or metacognitive skills” (Gui et al., 2017, p. 163), enabling individuals to deliberately control their focus of attention and to prevent the “fragmentation of daily time” (Gui et al., 2017, p. 155). They also allow users to actively filter and regulate digital stimuli—whether through self-limitation such as blocking internet access or selectively muting notifications (Gui et al., 2017). A certain degree of “technical skills” (Gui et al., 2017, p. 163) is equally necessary to implement these strategies effectively (Gui et al., 2017).

From here, the focus shifts to the media level, where digital well-being can also be supported through design-oriented interventions. In addition to digital detox strategies, various digital tools for monitoring and controlling media use can be deployed with varying degrees of success (Vanden Abeele, 2021). Alternatively, technological architectures can be redesigned in autonomy-enhancing ways by applying design strategies guided by ethical values (Dennis, 2021). Such ethically aligned design is especially crucial in educational technologies, where students’ autonomy and well-being may be particularly vulnerable. While these approaches contribute a more balanced distribution of responsibility for digital well-being between users and designers, they also raise questions regarding potential paternalism by technology providers. For this reason, interventions should aim for a finely balanced division of responsibility while preserving individual autonomy (Dennis, 2021).

Design-based approaches can also be complemented by or related to practices that are situated more strongly at the individual level. Although such digital disconnection practices (cf. Nguyen & Hargittai, 2024; Nguyen et al., 2024) or various digital detox strategies may temporarily alleviate symptoms of digital overload and foster a sense of control (cf. Vanden Abeele, 2021), studies summarized by Vanden Abeele and Nguyen (2022)—including Radtke et al. (2022) and Rosenberg and Vogelman-Natan (2022)—show that such practices represent a “complex endeavour” (Vanden Abeele & Nguyen, 2022, p. 6) with ambiguous effects on well-being. Pure avoidance of information can also be counterproductive, as it may paradoxically impact well-being—for instance, in the form of FoMO (Vanden Abeele, 2021; Nguyen & Hargittai, 2024). Sustained isolation from digital environments may, in the long run, hinder social integration and reduce individuals’ perceived connectedness to their social surroundings (e.g., Nguyen et al., 2024; Büchi et al., 2018, 2019), making disconnection, taken on its own, an unsatisfactory strategy for fostering digital well-being. Nevertheless, disconnection strategies—understood as deliberately chosen pauses from digital connectivity—can be regarded as interventions in the sense of individual self-regulation (e.g., Nguyen & Hargittai, 2024). However, as recent findings suggest, such practices must be situated within a dynamic interplay of social circumstances, individual needs, and technological infrastructures (Nguyen & Hargittai, 2024; Vanden Abeele et al., 2022), and cannot be considered a universally effective solution for digital well-being. These findings suggest that digital well-being should not be treated as an individual optimization project, but as a socially situated condition that requires coordinated strategies across user behavior, media design, and social or institutional practices.

In this context, digital well-being also emerges as a state that is less determined by the mere amount of media use and more by “how, when, and why” (Islambouli et al., 2024) digital practices occur (Islambouli et al., 2024; Ferguson et al., 2025). The nuanced identification of individual usage patterns highlights the need for tailored interventions that are responsive to personal needs and situational contexts, thereby contributing to the targeted promotion of digital well-being (Islambouli et al., 2024). At this point, reference can be made to the “Technology Habit Approach” (Meier, 2022), which offers a conceptual alternative to deficit-oriented models such as problematic usage or time spent using digital devices. By analytically distinguishing habitual usage patterns—such as checking behaviors or habit strength—from negative outcomes like procrastination or reduced well-being, this approach contributes to a more nuanced and context-sensitive understanding of digital well-being (Meier, 2022). This conceptual shift is potentially valuable for school-related interventions that seek to move beyond blanket restrictions by engaging with students’ digital habits in a more differentiated way.

This leads to the point that digital well-being must be understood as a construct shaped by social dynamics and institutional conditions. Connectivity and digital disconnection are not only experienced individually but are also negotiated within social groups and institutions, especially in contexts where rules for digital communication are often unclear or contested. Expectations regarding availability and social roles are subject to constant (re)negotiation, potentially leading to symptoms such as “availability stress” (Vanden Abeele, 2021, p. 945) or being regulated through “formalized rules and policies” (Vanden Abeele, 2021, p. 944). Since digital well-being is always shaped by social values, norms, and socio-structural factors (Gui et al., 2017), interventions and targeted support measures are likewise dependent on the negotiation of expectations and routines. This context-dependence makes it difficult to formulate uniform, formalized rules and interventions to promote digital well-being. Instead, the challenge lies in recognizing the significance of social and institutional influences and systematically incorporating them into the development of appropriate measures and negotiation processes. This need for a structural perspective becomes particularly evident in the context of digital inequality. While the importance of socio-structural factors for understanding digital well-being has already been acknowledged in various domains, the extent to which the concept requires a “structural sensibility” (Büchi & Hargittai, 2022, p. 2) is especially visible here.

3.3. Inequality

While the gap in terms of digital infrastructure and device ownership (first-level digital divide) appears to be gradually closing, significant disparities in media usage persist, heavily influenced by socio-economic factors. Social background plays a crucial role in shaping digital practices and attitudes towards digital media, directly influencing how competently and successfully individuals navigate digital environments (second and third-level digital divide) (e.g., Zillien & Hargittai, 2009; van Deursen & van Dijk, 2014; van Dijk, 2020; Helsper, 2021). Success in this context is not limited to academic or professional achievements but also encompasses the ability to use digital media strategically for personal goals—whether for information retrieval, self-development, or maintaining social relationships through social media (van Deursen & Helsper, 2017). This highlights the necessity of considering digital well-being and digital inequality in tandem (Büchi & Hargittai, 2022).

The relationship between digital competencies, belongingness, and social well-being is particularly central, as digital skills not only shape media usage but also reinforce the sense of belonging to the information society—an effect that is conditioned by socio-structural factors and digital inequalities, which ultimately influence experiences of social well-being (Büchi et al., 2018). These interrelations highlight how digital inequalities manifest not only in access and skills, but also in the ability to navigate digital environments in a way that supports well-being. In this context, PDO is regarded as a specific negative outcome of intensive internet use, with education demonstrating an ambivalent effect: While higher education is associated with a lower perception of PDO in a representative sample of Italian internet users, it simultaneously increases the use of digital communication channels and the perceived social digital pressure, which in turn has a positive effect on PDO (Gui & Büchi, 2021). Nonetheless, PDO and the ability to protect oneself from the negative consequences of media use can be seen as an “additional dimension of digital inequality” (Gui & Büchi, 2021, p. 14). Such subjective effects are embedded in broader structural dynamics: who is able to set boundaries, access support, or disengage from digital pressures is closely linked to their socio-economic positioning. Education, income, and social resources determine who benefits from digital opportunities and who is more likely to suffer negative consequences, thereby influencing digital well-being (Büchi, 2021). Access to digital resources and the ability to utilize them effectively are unequally distributed, reflecting broader societal disparities in power and resources (Büchi, 2021).

Regarding the dependence of digital well-being on social norms and collective usage practices within groups or institutions, the rapid introduction of digital tools may lead to a “cultural delay” (Gui & Büchi, 2021, p. 16) if rules and guidelines regulating digital media use in everyday life are lacking (Gui & Büchi, 2021). This poses a particular risk of further marginalizing individuals from socially disadvantaged backgrounds who possess fewer “digital well-being skills” (Gui et al., 2017, p. 155) and less agency in navigating and shaping their digital practices—or, in Bourdieu’s terminology, who have also less cultural capital. This is particularly relevant for young people navigating school environments, where digital norms are often opaque and unequally aligned with students’ existing resources, and also for teachers, who are likewise confronted with ongoing digitalization-related changes. For these reasons, digital well-being must be considered within a broader societal and structural framework, beyond individual and group-based usage practices or interventions such as digital detox strategies or behavioral control tools. This critical perspective must address structural issues and also consider design justice (Valasek, 2022, p. 245) in digital architectures to tackle challenges located at what Verständig et al. (2016) have termed the “zero-level digital divide”—a form of exclusion and disadvantage rooted in technical infrastructure and software architecture.

The findings presented in this section demonstrate that digital well-being cannot be considered independently of societal power asymmetries (e.g., Büchi & Hargittai, 2022; Roy, 2022), as the ongoing negotiations of this “dynamic construct” (Vanden Abeele, 2021) are shaped by unequal cultural and social influences as well as power imbalances, for instance, between technology providers and consumers (cf. Dennis, 2021; see also Roy, 2022). In this light, critical questions arise about the normative framing of digital well-being: There is a risk that certain behaviors are defined as «digitally healthy», thereby labelling individuals with fewer resources as experiencing “digital unwellness” (Valasek, 2022, p. 236) and reinforcing existing stigmas (Valasek, 2022). This becomes particularly problematic in light of empirical findings showing that socioeconomically disadvantaged population groups tend to engage in less «capital-enhancing» media use than higher-status users (e.g., Zillien & Hargittai, 2009), which can potentially be harmful, while simultaneously having poorer access to educational resources that foster what Gui et al. (2017, p. 155) describe as “digital well-being skills.”

3.4. Education

This leads us to the section that shows how references to education are interwoven with the conceptual construct of digital well-being. Schools are becoming “major players in the socialization to a critical and balanced use of the media in daily life” (Gui et al., 2017, p. 169). Developing the ability to manage digital overabundance and digital overuse is therefore a task that should be embedded in educational institutions to foster digital well-being (Gui & Büchi, 2021, p. 16). Accordingly, schools could occupy a pivotal role as they establish their own specific digital culture—one that addresses digital well-being in diverse ways and reflects broader societal power asymmetries—while simultaneously co-constructing digitality for all stakeholders (cf. Feerrar, 2022; Prinsloo et al., 2024). Despite this central role, the significance of education and schools in the discourse on the construct of digital well-being seems to have received limited attention so far, as illustrated in the concept matrix in the Appendix A.

While the theoretical positioning of schools as institutional actors remains underdeveloped, several practice-oriented initiatives illustrate how digital well-being can already be integrated into everyday school life. The Digital Well-Being—Schools program illustrates how schools can serve as spaces for reflective media education. Developed in collaboration with schools, it combines teacher training with independently conducted classroom activities across four modules—time and attention management, communication and collaboration, information evaluation, and digital content creation. The program’s positive effects on students’ media use and regulation highlight the potential of such school-based interventions and support the integration of digital well-being into teacher training and curricula for long-term impact (Gui et al., 2023). Building on this, schools can also function as social learning environments in which students collectively reflect on and co-construct digital well-being. A participatory design study using the IoTgo toolkit (IoTgo is a toolkit combining physical and digital components designed to support students in designing and reflecting on technologies for social digital well-being (Gennari et al., 2023, p. 4)) demonstrates how creatively structured, student-centered approaches can support this process by framing digital well-being not merely as an individual responsibility, but as a shared educational concern situated within students’ everyday school experiences (Other practice-oriented perspectives, such as the book Design Thinking for Digital Well-being: Theory and Practice for Educators by Chambers et al. (2019), illustrate how digital well-being can be addressed in school contexts through creative and participatory approaches. Although this work was not captured by the systematic search—likely due to keyword or indexing limitations—it nevertheless highlights relevant strategies for the practical implementation of digital well-being in educational settings) (Gennari et al., 2023).

Yet, the conditions for such processes are equally shaped by the technological infrastructures and media architectures within which schools operate. In this context, digital well-being is gaining further relevance in light of AI-driven technologies in education (Prinsloo et al., 2024). Systems such as AI-powered Educational Decision Support Systems and other algorithmic based applications like learning analytics carry the risk of reinforcing existing social inequalities—particularly in cases where decisions rely on opaque or norm-based proxies, as Prinsloo et al. (2024) caution. For students who already experience disadvantage, this can create an additional layer of burden that directly affects their digital well-being (Prinsloo et al., 2024). This underscores once again that digital well-being should not be conceived solely as an individual skill or behavior, but as a relational and structurally conditioned construct, deeply embedded in technological architectures and educational contexts.

To briefly conclude this section, while the influence of educational status on the negative effects of digital media use and the importance of educational institutions in fostering various skills are frequently acknowledged, the concrete role of schools is often only mentioned in passing without being explored in depth. Digital well-being is a construct that calls for a fundamental re-thinking in educational contexts (Feerrar, 2022). “Reframing the what and how” (Feerrar, 2022, p. 76) in this regard does not only mean creating disparity-sensitive spaces and opportunities for students to acquire digital competencies, but also entails rethinking the dual roles of teachers in the sense of “co-learning” (Feerrar, 2022, p. 76) and addressing digital well-being within the teaching staff (Feerrar, 2022; see also Gui et al., 2023). Digital well-being extends beyond simple “dos and don’ts” (Feerrar, 2022, p. 73) and, especially in the context of the reproduction of social inequality, requires a critical engagement within schools to ensure that digital media become a resource for personal development and participation, transforming schools into spaces that promote digital well-being on multiple levels. With this contribution, we seek to initiate a discussion on integrating the construct of digital well-being into school development processes related to digitalization. This leads us to the question of what implications the theoretical construct of digital well-being holds for school development and how it can be systematically embedded in educational policies and practices.

4. What Does Digital Well-Being Mean for School Development?

Building on the previous synthesis of findings, which aimed to outline and discuss how digital well-being is currently conceptualized, this final chapter offers a conceptual and practice-oriented transfer. After establishing the connection to health-oriented school development, the perspective shifts toward broader questions of school development. The chapter formulates implications and conclusions primarily addressed to stakeholders operating at the meso level—within individual schools—while also providing points of orientation for broader educational policy contexts. The discussion is structured along the five-dimensional model of digitalization-related school development by Eickelmann and Gerick (2017). Building on Rolff’s (1998) three-path model, Schulz-Zander (2001) had already extended the classical triad of professional, organizational, and curriculum development to include the dimensions of technology development and cooperation development—thus outlining five key dimensions of school development at the level of individual schools. This five-dimensional structure has since been adopted and refined by other scholars, including Eickelmann and Gerick (2017). Their model places particular emphasis on the role of school leadership in the context of digital media integration, which is why it is used as the analytical basis in this study.

Under a broader understanding of school development as a systemic process aimed at improving and further developing school quality in a reflexive manner, the interdependence of school quality and health (Rolff, 2004) becomes particularly relevant. In this light, and based on an expanded notion of health, digital well-being emerges as an essential preventative resource against technostress and a catalyst for eudaimonic well-being, thereby establishing itself as a crucial element of health-oriented school development. A reciprocal relationship becomes evident: on the one hand, school quality influences the health of educational staff and students (Hundeloh, 2012). On the other hand, the behaviors of these individuals feed back into school quality (Hundeloh, 2012)— for example, by contributing to the establishment and continuous adaptation of effective and healthy ways of using digital media. To ensure that schools fulfil both their educational mission to promote “health literacy” (Hundeloh, 2012, p. 29) and their duty of care to protect and sustain the health of staff and students, a multidimensional strategy is required. Beyond strengthening relevant competencies, school structures must be designed to act preventatively against digital strain while simultaneously enabling a reflective and health-promoting approach to digital media. This opens a pathway to understanding schools not only as places of knowledge transmission, but as key settings for preventive health work, social learning, and identity formation. Digital well-being becomes part of a broader educational mandate: to equip students with life skills that empower them to lead autonomous, socially responsible, and healthy lives in a digitalized world.

Approaches such as digital well-being could be integrated more systematically into school policy and culture, drawing connections to public health and educational health promotion. Crucially, students must be provided with broad opportunities for development and participation—for example, through involvement in the design of digital rules, media projects, or peer support initiatives. Such opportunities foster democratic competencies, strengthen self-efficacy, and support holistic personal development. Equity must be at the heart of this approach: socio-economic disparities should be actively addressed through targeted support structures to ensure that all learners—regardless of background—can benefit equally from digital educational resources and digital health education. The following sections systematically discuss the implications of digital well-being in the areas of organizational development, curriculum development, professional development, technology development, and cooperation development.

The organizational level of schools is particularly affected by the dynamics of a rapidly changing digital environment. Schools are increasingly confronted with a flood of innovations and demands—ranging from questions about students’ smartphone use in classrooms and school life to the integration of new technologies and digital tools, including AI applications that raise fundamental pedagogical and ethical questions. In this context, organizational development must address not only structural adaptation, but also the growing psychosocial demands on school members resulting from digital overload, problematic media use, and shifting expectations of digital communication. A successful organizational development strategy is most effective when broadly applied, engaging the entire teaching staff as well as all students (Eickelmann & Gerick, 2017). To ensure sustainable digital media use, overarching objectives must be firmly anchored within the school organization and aligned with the competencies and attitudes of teachers (Eickelmann & Gerick, 2017, p. 70). Organizational development and behavioral patterns among school members go hand in hand (Hundeloh, 2012, p. 93), meaning that all stakeholders should co-create the transformation process, while a structured framework must be established to guide their actions. Such a framework could take the form of a health-oriented quality concept or a guiding vision for individual schools that explicitly integrates digital well-being. School leaders play a central role as key initiators and coordinators of change processes at the meso level. They are responsible for embedding digital well-being meaningfully into core planning documents—such as media concepts or school quality frameworks—and for identifying which aspects of the digital environment pose risks to well-being in their specific school context. This includes developing targeted strategies to address these risks in a proactive and participatory manner. In this process, teachers should be actively involved in order to align goals and expectations regarding digital communication and collaboration (cf. Gradl, 2022, p. 42). Schools should develop a sensitivity to the strains and problematic media usage patterns among students and teachers. However, they must also avoid labelling specific behaviors as inherently «healthy» or «unhealthy», as this—in line with Valasek’s (2022) broader critique—risks stigmatizing individuals with different media usage patterns, potentially leading to exclusion. Instead of relying on rigid regulations, school organizations might benefit from approaching digital well-being as a “dynamic construct”—as conceptualized by Vanden Abeele (2021)—which acknowledges the inevitability of continuous change and the need for ongoing negotiation processes between actors and technologies. This requires incorporating the perspectives of students, teachers, and further school actors. A participatory process can help foster a shared understanding of digital well-being, serving as a binding framework structurally embedded in school development.

Digital media are an integral part of the learning environment, but their use must be strategically managed. It is crucial to carefully balance both the extent of use and the selection of media to ensure a pedagogically meaningful and well-balanced integration. This calls for coordinated curriculum development, which should involve didactic collaboration and networking among various stakeholders. School leadership also plays a pivotal role in steering this development, making strategic decisions, and acting as “process and subject promoters (All translations of German sources were made by the authors.)” (Eickelmann & Gerick, 2017, p. 71). Equally important is considering the interests, experiences, and everyday realities of students. A learner-centered approach must aim to connect digital media use with topics relevant to their lives, promoting media literacy as a core educational goal. Targeted needs assessments can help strengthen what Schneider et al. (2022) describe as the “Sense of Coherence”, fostering a sense of self-efficacy when specific technologies are perceived as beneficial and meaningful. Programs like Digital Well-Being—Schools (Gui et al., 2023) illustrate how skills such as digital self-regulation and critical reflection of media use can be combined with technical competencies and systematically integrated into curricula. Such programs extend the focus beyond technical handling by fostering ethical awareness and risk sensitivity, while also enabling students to navigate digital environments in ways that are both autonomous and socially responsible. Building on this idea, a broader perspective is needed—one that not only promotes digital skills, but also addresses everyday media habits and attitudes toward media use. This enables more inclusive and reflective practices, helping to mitigate socio-economic disparities. To counter such inequalities, it is crucial to move away from standardized interventions, as identical measures—such as equal access to technology or uniform training—can yield uneven outcomes: while beneficial for privileged individuals, they may be less effective or even detrimental for disadvantaged groups (cf. Helsper, 2021). To translate these insights into practice, teachers and school leaders are therefore called upon to create participatory learning environments in which students are actively involved in the negotiation of digital norms and rules. For instance, classroom or school rules for smartphone use could be developed collaboratively, encouraging self-regulated behavior and promoting healthier patterns of digital media use that move beyond simple prohibitions or mere suppression of stimuli. This requires an inequality- and context-sensitive mindset, one that recognizes the diverse digital starting points and support needs of students. The implementation and concrete design of such instructional approaches is not solely the responsibility of individual schools; policymakers must also adapt the relevant curriculum frameworks, as these shape instructional practice and set strategic priorities.

In practice, teachers are not only instructors but also learners in the sense of co-learning (Feerrar, 2022). This dual role underscores the need for a continuous development of their own digital competencies (see also Cramer & Hosenfeld, 2023). Digitally competent teachers are therefore crucial both as educators empowering students to act autonomously in a digitalized environment and as individuals who must also cultivate their own digital well-being. To unlock the full potential of school staff, technical and pedagogical conditions as well as opportunities for further education and professionalization must be adapted to individual needs (Eickelmann & Gerick, 2017). Health-conscious personnel management, as described by Hundeloh (2012), entails “placing the individual in the center, rather than viewing them solely as a workforce or human capital” (Hundeloh, 2012, p. 88). Accordingly, professional development should focus on providing supportive measures that help staff manage workload-related stress while enabling teachers and educational staff to fulfil their educational and pedagogical roles (Hundeloh, 2012). While digital skills remain a key resource for coping with new demands and enhancing autonomy and self-efficacy, studies also emphasize the importance of an open and positive attitude toward digital technologies (e.g., Annemann et al., 2024; Mußmann et al., 2021; Schmechtig et al., 2020), which can help reduce the perceived burden of digital work and foster empathy for students’ diverse digital experiences.

Given that digital strain is a subjective experience, school leaders should establish structures that assess perceived stress levels and individual needs, for example using surveys or structured discussions. These insights should inform the alignment of qualification programs with staff requirements. In their role as “power promoters” (Eickelmann & Gerick, 2017, p. 72) within the school development process, school leaders play a key role in shaping and driving personnel development (Eickelmann & Gerick, 2017). At the same time, it is essential to design and offer targeted professional development opportunities that address not only technical competence, but also promote reflection on personal media habits and the management of work–life boundaries in digital contexts. This requires not only a productive exchange between research and practice in shaping relevant training formats, but also an earlier integration of digital well-being into teacher education—making it an issue of higher education development as well. In this regard, education policy actors are also addressed to provide funding and long-term support for such initiatives.

The promotion of networks and cooperation development is essential not only between science and practice or between education policy and individual schools, but also within schools themselves. Collaborations within the teaching staff or with external educational partners regarding digital technologies in school life should be structurally supported and firmly embedded into school routines. This would allow the systematic use of intra-school knowledge resources (Eickelmann & Gerick, 2017) while fostering peer-to-peer learning and ongoing professional exchange. Findings from Annemann et al. (2024) show that access to shared knowledge resources—such as internal digital wikis or collaborative platforms—can function as constructive and motivating sources of professional engagement. Therefore, internal exchange forums and digital platforms for sharing materials could be systematically integrated—not only to facilitate collaboration, but also to support exchange between teachers with different levels of digital media affinity. Such networks can help bridge attitudinal differences and have the potential to positively influence teachers’ openness to new technologies (cf. Gradl, 2022, p. 35). Additionally, these structures offer a foundation for developing shared communication guidelines, particularly for addressing SDP among staff or to formulate guidelines for parental communication, ensuring that digital well-being considerations are included. Encouraging these exchange opportunities holds considerable potential for aligning media practices across the school. Finally, structured discussions can help alleviate uncertainties regarding the adoption of new digital tools and technologies.

To ensure that such decisions are pedagogically sound and context-sensitive, technology development and the integration of digital tools must follow a more critical and needs-oriented approach. Educational decisions regarding digital tools must be guided by questions of pedagogical necessity, practical feasibility, and contextual appropriateness, rather than by technological enthusiasm alone. This includes a careful consideration of whether innovations genuinely support meaningful learning processes or merely add complexity without clear benefits (cf. Selwyn, 2016). Moreover, the accessibility and usability of new technologies for teaching staff must be a central concern. Digital competence is not evenly distributed among educators, and overlooking these internal disparities risks reinforcing existing inequalities within schools. To prevent a «cultural lag» in which technological change outpaces pedagogical adaptation, the implementation of digital tools must be supported by clear usage guidelines, low-threshold support systems, and professional development opportunities tailored to different levels of prior knowledge.

In addition, greater awareness is needed regarding the underlying technological architectures and the normative frameworks embedded in digital platforms or tools (e.g., Prinsloo et al., 2024). Technology is never neutral: design decisions made by tech providers can reflect values and priorities that may conflict with educational aims or even exclude certain groups of users. Such misalignments risk deepening inequalities at the infrastructural level or «zero-level digital divide»—by privileging those already well-equipped to navigate digital systems. Against this backdrop, the guiding maxim of “pedagogy before technology” (Eickelmann & Gerick, 2017, p. 72) must be reaffirmed. Rather than adapting teaching to fit technological possibilities, technology should be critically selected—particularly by school leaders and policy actors—and aligned with clearly defined educational and well-being goals. Only then can digitalization in schools become a meaningful, equitable, and health-promoting process.

In summary, the conceptual dimensions outlined in Section 3—including risks associated with digital environments shaped by digital transformation, approaches to fostering digital well-being, and the role of digital inequality—are highly transferable to the school context. They highlight how schools are both affected by and actively shape digital conditions that impact students’ and staff members’ well-being. Digital well-being should therefore be understood as both a horizontal concern cutting across all areas of school development and a vertical responsibility requiring attention and coordination across the entire education system. Meeting this challenge demands more than isolated stakeholder efforts; it calls for a differentiated and cooperative approach that embraces shared responsibility for promoting digital well-being in schools and society.

5. Critical Reflections

We were able to show that digital well-being represents a broadly conceived construct that captures far-reaching influences of the digital environment and raises critical and complex questions regarding possible interventions at the individual, socio-structural, and media levels. It became clear that these questions cannot be considered independently of social inequality, particularly digital inequality. Against this backdrop, schools emerge as key sites of social reproduction, and educational institutions as central actors. Especially in light of the overarching societal relevance of digital well-being, they play a crucial role in linking digital well-being, inequality, and educational issues more deeply.

The orientation toward the method of theoretical review made it possible to elaborate a differentiated understanding of digital well-being and to examine its potential connections to educational science—particularly in the context of digital inequality. Although the corpus was deliberately narrowed through keyword-based searches and filtering techniques—which meant that related areas such as digital literacy, digital agency, and the broader well-being discourse, as illustrated by Passey (2021), were only selectively included—the combination of backward and forward searches proved especially productive. While the backward search helped identify foundational sources, the forward search added further literature that contributed to a sharper and more nuanced picture of digital well-being. Moreover, it became possible to trace which sources are most frequently cited and how they relate to one another. Although no definitive conclusions can be drawn about the significance of individual contributions within the discourse, a tendency toward certain central references emerged, confirming the initial impression. The concept matrix proved especially useful for organizing and analyzing the selected studies with regard to the central concepts of this review. Even though the units and categories could not always be clearly delineated, the matrix showed clearly that education-related perspectives were indeed adopted and that digital well-being is addressed—at least to some extent—within the context of educational research. However, there is still considerable scope for integrating educational frameworks into the broader debate.

Digital well-being thus emerges as a construct that offers broad connections to current debates in educational science. Not only through its salutogenic perspective, but also due to its dynamic, multi-perspective approach to contextual factors, a wide range of questions can be explored under this framework. Although education has been identified as a significant influencing factor in the perception of digital pressure, the specific role of schools as institutions remains underrepresented in the existing academic discourse. This is particularly striking given that schools serve as key sites for both the development of digital competencies and the negotiation of digital norms and expectations. Their unique positioning at the intersection of formal learning, socialization, and policy implementation makes them a central arena for shaping students’ digital experiences and well-being. Findings from ICIL-Studies (Eickelmann et al., 2024; Eickelmann et al., 2019; Bos et al., 2014) not only highlight significant deficits in digital literacy but also emphasize the pivotal role of schools in advancing digital equity. If we are to prevent the exacerbation and reproduction of social inequalities across various dimensions—whether in digital media practices, educational outcomes, or even health-related consequences such as digital overuse—it is imperative to adopt a more inequality-sensitive perspective in school development. This includes not only the integration of digital well-being into curricula and school culture, but also a critical reflection on how existing institutional structures may reinforce or mitigate digital inequalities. Through the conceptual transfer of the digital well-being framework into the field of school development, this review highlights its potential as a guiding concept for schools. It can help to reflect on institutional norms, design supportive media practices, and establish participatory structures that foster equitable participation and strengthen students’ resilience in the digital age. Future research should thus place greater emphasis on the institutional and pedagogical contributions of schools to digital well-being in order to inform more holistic and inclusive educational policies.