Published on in Vol 5, No 3 (2018): Jul-Sept

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at, first published .
For Better or for Worse? A Systematic Review of the Evidence on Social Media Use and Depression Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Minorities

For Better or for Worse? A Systematic Review of the Evidence on Social Media Use and Depression Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Minorities

For Better or for Worse? A Systematic Review of the Evidence on Social Media Use and Depression Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Minorities


1Center for Research on Media, Technology, and Health, School of Medicine, University of Pittburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States

2Center for LGBT Health Research, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States

3School of Social Work, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States

4Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States

5Health Sciences Library, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States

*all authors contributed equally

Corresponding Author:

César G Escobar-Viera, MD, PhD

Center for Research on Media, Technology, and Health

School of Medicine

University of Pittburgh

230 McKee Place

Suite 600.11

Pittsburgh, PA, 15213

United States

Phone: 1 412 692 4297

Fax:1 412 692 4838


Background: Over 90% of adults in the United States have at least one social media account, and lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) persons are more socially active on social media than heterosexuals. Rates of depression among LGB persons are between 1.5- and 2-fold higher than those among their heterosexual counterparts. Social media allows users to connect, interact, and express ideas, emotions, feelings, and thoughts. Thus, social media use might represent both a protective and a risk factor for depression among LGB persons. Studying the nature of the relationship between social media use and depression among LGB individuals is a necessary step to inform public health interventions for this population.

Objective: The objective of this systematic review was to synthesize and critique the evidence on social media use and depression among LGB populations.

Methods: We conducted a literature search for quantitative and qualitative studies published between January 2003 and June 2017 using 3 electronic databases. Articles were included if they were peer-reviewed, were in English, assessed social media use either quantitatively or qualitatively, measured depression, and focused on LGB populations. A minimum of two authors independently extracted data from each study using an a priori developed abstraction form. We assessed appropriate reporting of studies using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology and the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research for quantitative and qualitative studies, respectively.

Results: We included 11 articles in the review; 9 studies were quantitative and cross-sectional and 2 were qualitative. Appropriate reporting of results varied greatly. Across quantitative studies, we found heterogeneity in how social media use was defined and measured. Cyberbullying was the most studied social media experience and was associated with depression and suicidality. Qualitative studies found that while social media provides a space to disclose minority experiences and share ways to cope and get support, constant surveillance of one’s social media profile can become a stressor, potentially leading to depression. In most studies, sexual minority participants were identified inconsistently.

Conclusions: This review supports the need for research on the role of social media use on depression outcomes among LBG persons. Using social media may be both a protective and a risk factor for depression among LGB individuals. Support gained via social media may buffer the impact of geographic isolation and loneliness. Negative experiences such as cyberbullying and other patterns of use may be associated with depression. Future research would benefit from more consistent definitions of both social media use and study populations. Moreover, use of larger samples and accounting for patterns of use and individuals’ experiences on social media may help better understand the factors that impact LGB mental health disparities.

JMIR Ment Health 2018;5(3):e10496



Despite growing acceptance and civil rights gains in recent years, lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals in the United States still face stigma and disparities regarding mental health conditions [1]. LGB persons are a diverse population whose sexual attraction, behavior, or orientation differs from their heterosexual counterparts. Importantly, estimated rates of depression among LGB persons are between 1.5- and 2-fold higher than their heterosexual counterparts [2]. In 2015, 14.8% of LGB males and 20.4% of LGB females in the United States suffered at least one major depressive episode, totaling 1.9 million individuals, compared with 4.3% of heterosexual males and 8% of heterosexual females [1]. These findings are consistent with those in other developed countries, and disparities are greater among bisexual adults [3,4].

Social media includes a variety of websites and mobile apps that enable users to create content and participate in online social networking (eg, YouTube, Tumblr, Facebook) [5]. It is estimated that well over 90% of adults in the United States have at least one social media account, with an average daily use of 2-4 hours [6,7]. Social media is a communication space where users express emotions, feelings, and thoughts. For LGB individuals, social media is a primary mode of socializing, and LGB persons are more socially active on social media than heterosexuals [8,9]. National data on LGB individuals found that over 85% of participants had one social media account, and they used it at least weekly; this usage rose to over 91% among LGB young adults [10].

Social media use encompasses a series of measures that capture the experience of using social media. Although no clear consensus exists regarding which specific measures should be counted as social media use, common ones include time (time elapsed while using social media over 24 hours), frequency (number of times people check their social media account per day) [11], number of friends and self-presentation [12], number of platforms (sites or apps) used [13], closeness to online friends, and activities performed (eg, posting updates, sharing pictures, etc) [14,15], as well as other use patterns (eg, active vs passive use, experiences such as experiencing cyberbullying, problematic use, positive or negative quality of interactions, and motivation to use social media) [16-22].

In a broader context, previous research has also investigated the linguistic attributes of social media use that indicate self-disclosure and mental health information sharing and that predict receipt of social support and other therapeutic outcomes on social media [23,24]. Moreover, several studies have looked at either the moderating or mediating role of upward social comparison [25-30], social connectedness [31], envy [32], and intensity of use [33].

Some of the complexities associated with social media use among LGB persons have been studied in relation with parenting and gender transition [34,35]. The findings of these studies point out potential stressors, such as the need to become incidental advocates or the task of detecting disapproval and allies within one’s social networks [34]. On the other hand, social media has some duality to it; despite being a stressful environment, it can also provide support that helps mitigate the said stress [35]. More specifically, while some researchers have found an association between social media use and increased risk of depression [11,13,16,36], others have found an association between specific patterns of use and improvement of psychological well-being [37]. Thus, social media use may be both a risk and a protective factor for depression and psychological well-being in the general population. In addition, using social media may add unique protective and risk factors for depression among LGB individuals.

Meyer’s minority stress theory is the predominant framework for understanding the protective and risk factors for depression and other mental health disparities among LGB individuals [38]. There are at least three fundamental tenets to the minority stress theory. First, exposure to LGB-related stressors such as discrimination, social rejection, and sometimes violent victimization is a central cause of mental health problems among LGB individuals. Second, exposure to these “distal” stressors is associated with “proximal” stressors such as internalized homonegativity and expectations of rejection. Third, social support from within the LGB communities can help offset or buffer the impact of these stressors on mental health outcomes. Meyer’s theory has also been extended to incorporate specific groups among LGB persons, such as children, adolescents, and people living with HIV [39,40]. While this theory helps explain the effects of social stress due to marginalized social identities on mental health outcomes among sexual minorities [38], the virtual social environment of social media introduces new complexities to previously described social interactions. For example, social media may make it easier for LGB individuals to disclose their sexual orientation to others by forming connections, providing education, and facilitating positive interactions and social support among LGB individuals. These virtual interactions may reduce the stress experienced by LGB individuals based on their sexual orientation and may protect sexual minorities from depression [41-43]. This may be particularly true for LGB individuals for whom it is too dangerous to be “out” or disclose their sexual minority identity in real-world settings such as in the workplace or in public social spaces. Conversely, social media use may be a vehicle for negative experiences, such as stigmatization and social comparison. These can lead to negative outcomes, including decreased self-esteem, and depressive symptoms [44,45].

The ubiquity of social media has led researchers to suggest its use to provide people with mental illness the opportunity to challenge stigma, provide and receive peer-to-peer support, and access either Web-based or mobile interventions [46]. To do this, we need to understand the mixed effects of social media use—improvement of psychological well-being or worsening of affective symptoms—on mental health. This understanding will inform policy and studies that leverage the positive aspects and address the potentially negative aspects of use as well. However, to date, no comprehensive synthesis of research on the impact of different patterns of use on depression among LGB populations has been conducted. Considering that LGB persons exhibit consistently high rates of social media use and consistently higher rates of depression than heterosexuals, this is a particularly important gap in the literature. For these reasons, we conducted a systematic review with four overarching goals: (1) identify all the peer-reviewed published papers that examined social media use and depression among LGB individuals; (2) describe the characteristics of these studies, including the study-appropriate reporting and methodology (eg, quantitative vs qualitative); (3) describe how social media use and depression constructs were operationalized across studies; and (4) assess which of the main tenets of the minority stress theory was analyzed in each study, in order to make recommendations for future studies that could leverage social media for improving depression outcomes in this population.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

This systematic review has been reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement guidelines (Multimedia Appendix 1) [47,48]. The research protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (#CRD42018088165) and is available as a supplement (Multimedia Appendix 2).

We included quantitative and qualitative studies published in peer-reviewed journals, in the English language, during or after 2003 (when MySpace, the first modern social media site, started operating). We allowed manuscripts from conference proceedings only when full-research papers were required for submission and each submission went through a complete peer-review process. Included studies had to focus on social media use and depression among LGB minorities. We defined social media use as any usage measurement (eg, time, frequency, motivation to use, experiences while using, etc). Depression comprised major depressive disorder, bipolar depression, dysthymia, depressive symptoms, and psychological distress. LGB minorities were defined as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and men who have sex with men. Exclusion criteria included theses or dissertations, opinion pieces or reviews, and articles that studied use of short message service text messages (not included in our definition of social media). Research in which the sole focus was on gender minority populations (eg, transgender and gender nonbinary) were excluded to avoid conflating results of sexual minorities, which may not be applicable to gender minorities. However, studies in which gender minorities were a subpopulation included in the study LGB sample were included.

Search Process

Literature searches were developed and executed by a health sciences librarian (CBW) in PubMed or MEDLINE (1946-Present), PsycINFO, Ovid (1806-present), and SocINDEX, EBSCOhost (1895-present). Controlled vocabulary from Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), the Thesaurus of Psychological Index Terms, and SocINDEX Subject Terms, along with keywords and descriptors were used for the concepts of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and interse (LGBTQI), social media, and depression. For all three concepts, we included MeSH and text words in title and abstract. For social media, descriptors included sexual network or partner; seeking sex on internet, online, on the Web, or on websites; finding partners on the internet, online, on the Web, or on websites; and sexual behavior on the internet, online, on the Web, or on websites. For depression, descriptors also included all related depression terms. The Boolean operator “AND” combined the three search components. Searches were limited to journal articles only, with no language or publication year restrictions. The entire list of keywords, descriptors, and search strings used in each database is available as a supplement (Multimedia Appendix 3). Search results were downloaded and imported into an EndNote Library on June 5, 2017. A total of 1259 citations were found. Of these, 539 citations were from PubMed or MEDLINE, 404 citations from PsychINFO, and 316 citations from SocINDEX. There were 160 duplicates records, leaving 1099 citations to screen.

Study Selection and Data Extraction

Screening and data extraction were completed using DistillerSR [49]. Structured forms were uploaded to the software and used throughout the entire process. Six researchers (ALB, CJC, BLH, AS, JES, and DLW) independently screened all article titles and abstracts to generate a set of references for which there was any possibility for selection. Next, these six researchers were divided into three pairs and were randomly assigned an equal number of references; they assessed the full text of these studies to determine eligibility. Interrater reliability was substantial (weighted Cohen kappa, 0.70) [50]. To minimize the risk of reviewer bias, consensus meetings between the first author and each pair of reviewers to resolve differences occurred, but only after independent screening of all articles. In one case, the first author adjudicated a reference for inclusion.

Extraction forms included seven categories of information: (1) study logistics (setting, country, publication year, social media site under study, study design, and funding source); (2) study population characteristics (number of subjects, age, gender, race or ethnicity, sexual minorities included, education level, and income); (3) social media use (number of social networking sites, time of usage and frequency, scales, and contextual measures); (4) health outcomes measured (primary and secondary outcomes measured and scales); (5) main results and limitations; (6) main tenet of the minority stress theory under study (ie, distal stressors, proximal stressors, and social support); and (7) appropriateness of reporting. To ensure accuracy, we implemented a quality-control mechanism in which one reviewer completed a first data extraction and the second reviewer validated or disagreed with it. Again, disagreements were resolved in consensus meetings with each pair and the first author.

Appropriate Study Reporting

We assessed the appropriate reporting of the included studies. For quantitative studies, we used the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement Checklist v4.0 [51,52]. The STROBE statement consists of a checklist of 22 items related to all sections of research manuscripts; STROBE provides reporting recommendations for studies that investigate associations between exposures and health outcomes [51,52]. We assigned values of 0-1 to each check mark. Thus, total score for each manuscript could range from 0 to 22, in which 22 means the study fully met the STROBE standards of appropriate reporting. For qualitative manuscripts, we used the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ-32) [53], a checklist of 32 items aimed at improving the quality of reporting individual interviews– and focus groups–generated data. We used the same previously explained mechanism to score each manuscript from 0 to 32, in which 32 means the study fully met the COREQ-32 standards of appropriate reporting. Each study was appraised by at least two reviewers, and the first author was consulted to resolve any disagreement. The assessments of appropriate reporting for all manuscripts are available as supplements (Multimedia Appendices 4 and 5).

Study Identification

We identified 1259 records through our database searching process. After excluding duplicates, we reviewed 1099 unduplicated citations (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Flowchart of studies screened and included in a 2017 systematic review of social media use and depression among lesbian, gay, and bisexual minority populations.

Of these, 1035 were excluded after title and abstract screening. Of the 64 full-text manuscripts that were assessed for eligibility, 53 were excluded for different reasons: 8 lacked a focus on sexual minorities, 15 did not specifically assess social media use, and 30 did not have depression as part of the outcomes under study. Eleven research articles were, thus, included in the final sample. Reference lists of included articles were examined for additional studies. However, no new study that met the inclusion criteria was identified using this method.

Study Characteristics and Appropriate Reporting

Of the 11 included studies, 8 (72%) consisted of cross-sectional surveys [54-61], 2 (18%) consisted of qualitative analyses [62,63], and 1 (9%) combined cross-sectional surveys with social network analysis [64] (condensed Table 1; for full table, please see Multimedia Appendix 6). The social media site or platform targeted in the study varied across the included manuscripts. Of the 11 studies, 5 (46%) did not focus on a specific social media site [54,56,57,60,61], 2 (18%) targeted the use of blogs and discussion forums [59,63], and 4 (36%) focused on a specific social media site or platform [55,58,62,64].

Table 1. Characteristics of studies on social media use and depression including sexual minorities published between January 2003 and June 2017.
Author(s), country, yearDesignSocial media site or appParticipantsScorea
NSample descriptionSexual minorities (%)
Morelli et al, Italy, 2016 [54]Cross-sectional surveyNo specific site1334Middle- and high-school students and young adultsLesbian or gay (12.6)11b
Gibbs & Rice, USA, 2016 [55]Cross-sectional surveyGrindr195Male users of a hook-up mobile appGay (86); bisexual (9.8)20b
Cenat et al, Canada, 2015 [56]Cross-sectional surveyNo specific site6540Students from 34 participating high schools across CanadaLesbian or gay (1.3); bisexual (10)20b
Rubin & McClelland, USA, 2015 [62]Individual interviewsFacebook8Female adolescent who reported being daily Facebook usersLesbian (62.5); bisexual (37.5)15c
Duong & Bradshaw, USA, 2014 [57]Cross-sectional surveyNo specific site951Sexual minority students, grades 9-12 from 105 NYCd schoolsN/Ae17b
Homan et al, USA, 2014 [64]Cross-sectional survey; social network analysisTrevorSpace195Users of a LGBQf social networking siteN/A19b
Lester, USA, 2006 [58]Cross-sectional surveyBmezine4700Users of a body modification websiteLesbian or gay (5); bisexual (37.9)5b
Cooper & Blumenfeld, USA, 2012 [59]Cross-sectional surveyGeneral blogs and discussion boards310National sample of middle- and high-school students who identified as LGBg, or with same-sex attraction or LGBTh allied youthLesbian or gay or bisexual (80.6)13b
Alang & Fomotar, USA, 2014 [63]NetnographyUnidentified forum for new and expecting parentsN/AMessages from an unidentified online forum for lesbian mothers with postpartum depressionLesbian (100)17c
Ceglarek & Ward, USA, 2016 [60]Cross-sectional surveyNo specific site570College students and community LGBTQi group membersLesbian or gay (6.8); bisexual (5.4); predominantly heterosexual (13.5)20b
Ramsey et al, USA, 2016 [61]Cross-sectional surveyNo specific site634Undergraduate college studentsLesbian or gay (7.6); bisexual (4.4); mostly gay or lesbian (3.5); mostly heterosexual (3.3); questioning (0.8)19b

aAppropriate reporting score. Reporting adequacy was assessed using footnotes b and c.

bThe Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (range 0-22) for quantitative studies.

cThe Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research 32 (range 0-32) for qualitative studies.

dNYC: New York City.

eN/A: not applicable.

fLGBQ: lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning.

gLGB: lesbian, gay, and bisexual.

hLGBT: lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender.

iLGBTQ: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning.

The studies that captured the age of participants [54-56,59-62,64] reported that ages ranged between 11 and 30 years; 27% (3/11) studies did not report participants’ age range [57,58,63]. Furthermore, 64% (7/11) studies included both male and female participants [54,56-61]; in these studies, female participants ranged from 55% to 78%. In addition, 18% studies (2/11) included only female participants [62,63] and 9% (1/11) had an exclusively male sample [55]; 18% (2/11) studies included a sample of transgender participants, with this group comprising 0.9% [59] and 0.8% of participants [61]. Additionally, 18% (2/11) studies included a small sample of gender nonconforming participants. In these studies, the percentage of gender nonconforming participants ranged from 0.7% [58] to 1.6% [61]. Participants’ gender was not reported in 9% (1/11) studies [64].

Overall, the reporting of sexual minority participants varied across studies; 46% (5/11) of studies combined gay and lesbian identity [54,56,58,60,61]; 18% (2/11) studies reported a “predominantly or mostly heterosexual identity” category [60,61] and 9% (1/11) combined gay, lesbian, and bisexual identities [59]. Furthermore, 18% (2/11) studies reported that their entire sample comprised LGB participants, but participants’ sexual orientation was not broken down into specific categories [57,64].

Finally, the appropriate reporting of results was variable. Among 9 quantitative studies, STROBE scores [51] ranged from 5 to 20 out of 22. Of all, 89% (8/9) studies met the reporting standards on their title, abstract, and introduction sections; 67% (6/9) studies met reporting standards on methods, 22% (2/9) on results, 6 (67%) on discussion, and 2 (22%) on funding source reporting (Multimedia Appendix 4). For 2 qualitative studies, COREQ-32 scores [53] were 15 [62] and 17 [63] out of 32, respectively (Multimedia Appendix 5).

Exposure and Outcome Characteristics and Social Media Sites Studied

Operationalizing of social media use measurement varied across studies, and these findings are summarized in a condensed Table 2 (for full table, please see Multimedia Appendix 7). In 9 quantitative studies, social media use was assessed in variable ways: 33.3% (3/9) studies measured the self-reported experience of cyberbullying [56,57,61], 22.2% (2/9) measured the frequency of social media use [59,60], and 22.2% (2/9) assessed the general use of social media (dichotomously) [55,58]. Furthermore, 44.4% (4/9) studies measured only one of the following: sexting behavior [54], integration of social ties on social media [64], number of social media platforms used [60], and motivation to use social media [60]. Qualitative studies explored the use of Facebook profile management tools [62] and experience of using an online support forum [63].

Similarly, assessment of depression varied across quantitative studies. Depression was operationalized as depressive symptoms in 44.4% (4/9) [55,59-61,64], psychological distress in 22.2% (2/9) [54,56], and suicidality in 33.3% (3/9) [56-58] studies; 22.2% (2/9) studies assessed either engagement in physical fights [57] or emotional responses to cyberbullying (including feelings of depression) [59]. Qualitative studies analyzed depression-related themes including social, emotional, and health consequences of stress caused by managing participants’ Facebook profiles [62] and the emotional experience derived from using an online support forum [63].

Main Findings

Exposure to cyberbullying on social media among LGB individuals was frequent, and the majority of those who experienced it reported feelings of depression [59] (condensed Table 2; for full table, please see Multimedia Appendix 7). Compared with heterosexual youth, bisexual boys and girls were more likely to report cyberbullying [56,61]. Among LGB boys and girls, cyberbullying was directly and independently associated with psychological distress [56], depression [61], engaging in physical fights [57], and suicidal thoughts or suicide attempts [56,57]. Compared with heterosexuals, sexual minority users of an online forum group also had higher rates of suicidality [58].

Association between using social media and depression differed depending on which characteristic or pattern of use was under study. One study found that lesbian or gay participants had higher rates of sexting behavior than their heterosexual peers; however, psychological distress was not different across three levels of sexting [54]. Another study found moderate levels of depression among all male users of a gay hook-up mobile app [55]. Yet another study found that social media users who had more friends who knew each other (ie, a tightly integrated social network) predicted lower depression scores than those who did not [64]. When compared with their heterosexual peers, sexual minority youth reported higher rates of both social media sites used and motives to use them [60]. Furthermore, perceived social support on social media among sexual minority youth was negatively associated with loneliness and using social media to discuss LGB issues was negatively associated with anxiety and hostility [60].

Qualitative explorations about social media use and mental health among sexual minorities indicated both risks and benefits. Maintaining a Facebook profile was deemed part of everyday life among lesbian and bisexual females [62]. However, it also requires constant surveillance and monitoring of one’s social interactions, which in turn can be a stressor, leading to rumination of ideas, shame, and depression if one is excluded or outed [62]. On the other hand, among LGB mothers dealing with postpartum depression, an online forum served as a space where they could disclose their experiences with the condition while sharing ways to cope with it, building a community that provided different forms of social support [63].

Finally, while most of the reviewed studies assessed only one component of Meyer’s theory, other studies focused on more than one. Of the included studies, 81.8% (9/11) focused on social media experiences as a source of stressors, such as victimization or cyberbullying [54-59,61,62,64]; 36.4% (4/11) studies focused on social media as a potential source of support for LGB individuals [55,60,63,64] and 9.1% (1/11) assessed proximal stressors (ie, sexual orientation identity concealment on social media) [62].

Table 2. Exposure and outcome assessment and main findings of studies of social media use and depression including sexual minorities published between January 2003 and June 2017.
Author(s), country, yearExposure assessment toolOutcome assessment toolAspect of minority stress theory studied
Morelli et al, Italy, 2016 [54]Modified version of the Sexting Behaviors Scale12-item General Health QuestionnaireDistal stressors
Gibbs & Rice, USA, 2016 [55]Sample was recruited exclusively from Grindr (overall use was not assessed)4-item Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression ScaleDistal stressors; social support
Cenat et al, Canada, 2015 [56]Item asking, “In the last 12 months, how many times someone has bullied you (rumors, intimidation, threatening, etc) using the internet (Facebook, MySpace, MSN, email, text, etc)?”10-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale; item asking, “Have you ever seriously thought of committing suicide?”Distal stressors
Rubin & McClelland, USA, 2015 [62]Experience of being young, queer, and a person of color in an online networkConsequences of social exclusionary practices within an online networkDistal stressors; proximal stressors
Duong & Bradshaw, USA, 2014 [57]Item from Youth Risk Behavior Survey asking, “During the past 12 months, have you ever been electronically bullied, such as through email, chat rooms, instant messaging, websites, or text messaging?”; item asking, “In the past 12 months, have you ever been bullied on school property?”Item asking, “During the past 12 months, how many times did you actually attempt suicide?”; “During the past 12 months, how many times were you in a physical fight?”Distal stressors
Homan et al, USA, 2014 [64]Social network structure graph9-item Patient Health care QuestionnaireDistal stressors; social support
Lester, USA, 2006 [58]Sample was recruited exclusively from Bmezine (overall use was not assessed)Item asking, “How many times have you attempted suicide?”Distal stressors
Cooper & Blumenfeld, USA, 2012 [59]Item asking, “How often in an average week do you use communication technologies (eg, blogging, chat rooms, and discussion boards)?”; item asking, “How often in the last 30 days have you been harassed based on your sexual identity?”Not providedDistal stressors
Alang & Fomotar, USA, 2014 [63]Assessment of the role of an online forum as source of social supportExperience of lesbian mothers with postpartum depression using a dedicated online forumSocial support
Ceglarek & Ward, USA, 2016 [60]Item asking, “How often do you use social networking sites?”; “Which social networking sites do you use?”; “How much these statements apply to you?” Example statement: “I use social networking sites to seek groups of people similar to myself”26-item Brief Symptom InventorySocial support
Ramsey et al, USA, 2016 [61]Cyberbullying; Victimization Scale of the Cyberbullying and Online Aggression SurveyCenter for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale-RevisedDistal stressors

Principal Results

In this systematic review, we found a low number of peer-reviewed published research examining social media use and depression among LGB persons. We found ample variation in measurement of social media use and operationalization of these measures. Variability across studies was also found in the definition of sexual minorities as well as conflating sexual and gender minorities in the same study population. The implications of these findings and suggestions for future research are discussed below.

Despite our comprehensive inclusion criteria and systematic online search approach (eg, we included articles that measured depressive symptoms using a psychologic distress scale), there were few studies that examined the relationship between social media use and depression among LGB individuals; 9 studies were cross-sectional and only 2 examined qualitative data. Appropriate reporting of results was variable across the included studies. For quantitative studies, most of the variability was due to incomplete reporting of study results, such as demographics, clinical and social characteristics of participants and reasons for nonparticipation, incomplete report of estimates, and nonreporting of ad-hoc analyses (eg, interactions, sensitivity analysis). On the other hand, most of the variation across the 2 qualitative studies was due to inadequate reporting of sample size, nonparticipant characteristics, sample description, development of interview guides, or data saturation.

We found variation in the included studies’ approach to whether assess social media use on a platform-specific approach or for social media as a whole. While social media sites share commonalities, in many aspects they are also very different. For example, certain social media sites are more popular among certain groups than others [65]. Moreover, while some actions and modes of interaction (eg, posting a picture; live streaming; and commenting on someone’s tweet, post, or status update) are actions one can perform across several social media sites, the length of time the picture or video is available, the allowed length of response to a comment, and the audience for these can be very different from one social media site to another. It is also important to consider the motivation to use a given site.

A key finding from this review, adding to other research on the same topic [36,66], is that seeking social support and connectedness might be a potentially strong motivation to use social media among LGB individuals [60,62,63]. Social support is a known protective factor against depression [67-69]. This review supports the need for future research that focuses on assessing the role of variables that describe the quality of the social media experience (eg, active and passive use, motivation to use) in order to understand the effect of social media use on depression among LGB persons.

There was considerable variation in how social media use was operationalized and measured among the included studies, which speaks to the complexity of using social media. In some studies, use was operationalized in terms of frequency, the number of platforms used, and for how long the individuals used them. In other studies, use was measured in terms of characteristics, such as experiences with cyberbullying and use of social media to find camaraderie online. These findings are consistent with those of other systematic reviews linking social media use to mental health outcomes within the general population [36,66]. For example, while some studies have found frequency or volume of social media use to be associated with depression [11,70], these studies do not take into consideration the specific activities undertaken on social media (eg, engaging in contentious interactions or comparing one’s self to others) that could be associated with depression. It is possible that behaviors such as scrolling through newsfeeds with little interaction could also be a problematic behavior. Any of these actions—which vary greatly but may all yield differing levels of importance to mental health outcomes—may be categorized as social media use. While studies using various measures of social media use add to the richness and understanding of it, they may lead to false comparisons and mixed results. It may be valuable for future research to conduct scale development studies that focus on social media use as a construct. Additionally, use of clear and transparent language that more accurately defines the measurements of use may be beneficial.

The results of this review echo a body of research that found an elevated prevalence of depression and psychological distress among LGB individuals compared with that among their heterosexual counterparts [71-75]. Our findings point to the variability in experiencing depression and psychological distress in association with social media use for bisexually identified individuals. These findings might be explained by the minority stress theory [38], which posits that individuals with marginalized identities experience stress from their social environment due to social status [76]. The higher rates of depression and psychological distress among LGB persons may be attributed in part to experiencing discrimination, harassment, and victimization because of their sexual orientation. The findings that using social media may be a protective factor articulates the argument of the sense of an LGB community, which suggests that belonging to a larger community may buffer the effects of marginalization [77,78]. In terms of social media, being connected to other LGB individuals may reduce the psychological effects of discrimination, harassment, and victimization these persons experience in the social environment. Nevertheless, the small samples of LGB individuals in these studies limit the ability to determine if any subgroup differences exist in the protective nature of community connectedness.

This review found a strong focus within the literature on environmental and societal stressors that, via social media, may impact depression outcomes among LGB persons. Much less emphasis has been put on understanding the role of online social support and proximal stress processes (eg, expectation of rejection, concealment, and internalized homophobia) in the association between social media use and depression in this group. In addition, it is not clear to what extent experiences lived in the offline world translate to the social media world for LGB persons. For example, while social support is an important protective factor for depression, the findings regarding online social support in the general population have been mixed, with one study reporting lower levels of protection against adverse mental health outcomes [67]and another reporting an improved quality of life and well-being among those who feel socially excluded and seek online social support [79]. Future studies should keep expanding research on the different components of the minority stress theory as they relate to social media use and depression.

Importantly, we found methodological concerns across the included studies regarding the definition of sexual minority individuals, as well as the conflation of results from men and women in the sample, making it difficult to interpret as to which group the said results would apply. We found a lack of clearly defined LGB samples in this area of research. Of the 11 included studies, 2 did not report participants’ sexual orientation. Among studies that reported sexual orientation, several grouped gay men and lesbian women into one group. This reduction limits the ability to understand how using social media may be associated with psychological distress and depression in each group separately. Upon further analysis, studies that included both sexual orientation and gender identity often conflated these two groups, making it hard to determine the differences in experiences of depression based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The collapsing of groups complicated our ability to understand the nuanced differences experienced by individuals based on sexual orientation and gender identity [80]. These findings suggest the need for research that includes larger samples of LBG participants to allow the study of lesbian women, gay men, bisexual women, and bisexual men separately, as well as samples that allow distinguishing sexual orientation from gender identity when reporting results. The lack of representativeness extends to other subpopulation differences. For example, half of the studies did not report participant race or ethnicity, and among those that did, the racial composition of the samples was predominantly white. However, research suggests that LGB racial or ethnic minorities have different experiences with both social media use and mental health compared with their white counterparts [65,81,82]. Thus, considerations should be made to ensure these samples include adequate percentages of LGB racial or ethnic minorities.

None of the studies included in this review had participants older than 30 years of age. While young adults are the group with highest levels of social media use, around 70% of adults aged 30-64 years and over 35% of those aged 65 years and above have at least one social media account [65]. Given the higher risk of depression among the LGB population and the potential dual role of social media, the lack of data from older individuals is concerning. Usage of, interaction with, and experiences concerning social media may be different by age group, and these variations could have differential effects on mental health outcomes. Future research focused on improving the sampling of sexual minority populations should also consider improving sampling across different age groups.

Implications and Future Directions

Internal and social stressors related to minority status are at the core of the minority stress theory [38]. Given the global spread of social media as both a tool and environment within which social interactions occur, we may need a potential expansion of Meyer’s theory, one that accounts for the social media experience. Elements of this theory can be applied to LGB-related experiences in the social media environment. However, Meyer’s theory was published in 2003, at a time when many of the modern social media sites that are used today did not exist. For example, MySpace started in the same year that Meyer’s work was published, and Facebook started the following year; since then, there has been a proliferation of various social media sites and platforms, which have dramatically changed the social interaction landscape of LGB individuals. As social media research progresses, we need to empirically test the relationship between the different components of Meyer’s theory, social media use, and depression. This will inform whether social media aggravates or alleviates minority stress and depression, as well as how and to what extent. Moreover, we expect that as the field moves forward, this research could potentially reveal new or modified risk and protective factors for LGB individuals’ mental health in ways the minority stress theory could not anticipate. Understanding how virtual and nonvirtual social platforms influence mental health, both independently of and interacting with each other, will be critical to gain a full understanding of the role of the social environment on LGB mental health disparities.


There is a growing concern about the impact of social media use on mental health outcomes. LGB individuals are a well-suited population to study the nature of the relationship between social media use and depression due to the disproportionately high prevalence of both in this group. This systematic review supports the need for research that addresses the role of using social media in the pathway of depression and other mental health outcomes among sexual minority populations. Our findings suggest that social media use may be both a protective and risk factor for these outcomes among LGB individuals. Connections and support gained via social media may buffer the impact of geographic isolation, discrimination, and loneliness that some LGB persons experience in their daily lives. However, the pressure of maintaining a desirable social media presence, negative experiences on social media such as cyberbullying, and certain patterns of use may associate with increased depressive symptoms in this population. Our findings also indicate the need for future research in this field to recruit larger samples, have more consistent definitions of the study populations, better define the social media use construct, and incorporate the social media experience into the conceptualization of psychosocial factors that impact sexual minorities’ mental health disparities.


We gratefully acknowledge funding from The Fine Foundation (grant number 171R32SM-2018) for the completion of this research; the foundation played no role in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; or decision to submit the article for publication.

Authors' Contributions

CGEV conceptualized the review; developed inclusion and exclusion criteria; guided the screening, eligibility, and data extraction process; summarized the data; and wrote the first manuscript draft. DLW, AS, JES, and BLH contributed to the screening, eligibility, and data extraction process; figures and tables; and the discussion section of the manuscript. ALB and CJC contributed to the screening, eligibility, and data extraction process and constructed the tables included in Multimedia Appendices 1, 3, 4, and 5. CBW conducted the online search and contributed to the search methods section. MPM and BAP contributed in developing inclusion and exclusion criteria and contributed to all the sections of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

Multimedia Appendix 1

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist.

PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 44KB

Multimedia Appendix 2

PROSPERO research protocol.

PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 84KB

Multimedia Appendix 3

Online search strategy.

PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 65KB

Multimedia Appendix 4

Evaluation of quantitative studies included using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) criteria.

PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 34KB

Multimedia Appendix 5

Evaluation of qualitative studies included using the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ-32).

PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 28KB

Multimedia Appendix 6

Characteristics of studies of social media use and depression including sexual minorities published between January 2003 and June 2017.

PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 35KB

Multimedia Appendix 7

Exposure and outcome assessment and main findings of studies of social media use and depression including sexual minorities published between January 2003 and June 2017.

PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 41KB

  1. Medley G, Lipari RN, Bose J, Cribb DS, Kroutil LA, McHenry G. 2017. URL: https:/​/www.​​data/​sites/​default/​files/​NSDUH-SexualOrientation-2015/​NSDUH-SexualOrientation-2015/​NSDUH-SexualOrientation-2015.​htm [accessed 2018-07-05] [WebCite Cache]
  2. King M, Semlyen J, Tai SS, Killaspy H, Osborn D, Popelyuk D, et al. A systematic review of mental disorder, suicide, and deliberate self harm in lesbian, gay and bisexual people. BMC Psychiatry. Aug 18, 2008;8:70. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  3. la RC, Kretschmer T, Dijkstra JK, Veenstra R, Oldehinkel AJ. Disparities in Depressive Symptoms Between Heterosexual and Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Youth in a Dutch Cohort: The TRAILS Study. J Youth Adolesc. Mar 2016;45(3):440-456. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  4. Björkenstam C, Björkenstam E, Andersson G, Cochran S, Kosidou K. Anxiety and Depression Among Sexual Minority Women and Men in Sweden: Is the Risk Equally Spread Within the Sexual Minority Population? J Sex Med. Mar 2017;14(3):396-403. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  5. Gelinas L, Pierce R, Winkler S, Cohen IG, Lynch HF, Bierer BE. Using Social Media as a Research Recruitment Tool: Ethical Issues and Recommendations. Am J Bioeth. Mar 2017;17(3):3-14. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  6. Greenwood S, Perrin A, Duggan M. Pew Research Center. Nov 11, 2016. URL: [accessed 2018-06-06] [WebCite Cache]
  7. Duggan M, Ellison NB, Lampe C, Lenhart A, Madden M. Pew Research Center. Jan 09, 2015. URL: [accessed 2018-06-06] [WebCite Cache]
  8. Pew Research Center. URL: [accessed 2018-06-06] [WebCite Cache]
  9. Horvath KJ, Danilenko GP, Williams ML, Simoni J, Amico KR, Oakes JM, et al. Technology use and reasons to participate in social networking health websites among people living with HIV in the US. AIDS Behav. May 2012;16(4):900-910. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  10. Community Marketing Inc. URL: [accessed 2018-06-06] [WebCite Cache]
  11. Lin LY, Sidani JE, Shensa A, Radovic A, Miller E, Colditz JB, et al. Association between social media use and depression among U.S. young adults. Depress Anxiety. Apr 2016;33(4):323-331. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  12. Kim J, Lee JR. The Facebook paths to happiness: effects of the number of Facebook friends and self-presentation on subjective well-being. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. Jun 2011;14(6):359-364. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  13. Primack BA, Shensa A, Escobar-Viera CG, Barrett EL, Sidani JE, Colditz JB, et al. Use of multiple social media platforms and symptoms of depression and anxiety: A nationally-representative study among U.S. young adults. Comput Human Behav. Apr 2017;69:1-9. [CrossRef]
  14. Rosen LD, Whaling K, Carrier LM, Cheever NA, Rokkum J. The Media and Technology Usage and Attitudes Scale: An empirical investigation. Comput Human Behav. Nov 1, 2013;29(6):2501-2511. [FREE Full text] [Medline]
  15. Deters FG, Mehl MR. Does Posting Facebook Status Updates Increase or Decrease Loneliness? An Online Social Networking Experiment. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. Sep 1, 2013;4(5). [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  16. Shensa A, Escobar-Viera CG, Sidani JE, Bowman ND, Marshal MP, Primack BA. Problematic social media use and depressive symptoms among U.S. young adults: A nationally-representative study. Soc Sci Med. Dec 2017;182:150-157. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  17. Verduyn P, Lee DS, Park J, Shablack H, Orvell A, Bayer J, et al. Passive Facebook usage undermines affective well-being: Experimental and longitudinal evidence. J Exp Psychol Gen. Apr 2015;144(2):480-488. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  18. Simoncic TE, Kuhlman KR, Vargas I, Houchins S, Lopez-Duran NL. Facebook use and depressive symptomatology: Investigating the role of neuroticism and extraversion in youth. Comput Human Behav. Nov 1, 2014;40:1-5. [FREE Full text] [Medline]
  19. Teppers E, Luyckx K, Klimstra TA, Goossens L. Loneliness and Facebook motives in adolescence: a longitudinal inquiry into directionality of effect. J Adolesc. Jul 2014;37(5):691-699. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  20. Schou AC, Billieux J, Griffiths MD, Kuss DJ, Demetrovics Z, Mazzoni E, et al. The relationship between addictive use of social media and video games and symptoms of psychiatric disorders: A large-scale cross-sectional study. Psychol Addict Behav. Mar 2016;30(2):252-262. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  21. Rosenthal SR, Buka SL, Marshall BDL, Carey KB, Clark MA. Negative Experiences on Facebook and Depressive Symptoms Among Young Adults. J Adolesc Health. Nov 2016;59(5):510-516. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  22. Davila J, Hershenberg R, Feinstein BA, Gorman K, Bhatia V, Starr LR. Frequency and Quality of Social Networking Among Young Adults: Associations With Depressive Symptoms, Rumination, and Corumination. Psychol Pop Media Cult. Apr 1, 2012;1(2):72-86. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  23. De Choudhury M, De S. Mental Health Discourse on Reddit: Self-Disclosure, Social Support, and Anonymity Internet. Proc Eight Int AAAI Conf Weblogs Soc Media. Palo Alto, CA. Association for Advancement of Artificial Intelligence; 2014. URL: [accessed 2018-06-06] [WebCite Cache]
  24. Ernala SK, Rizvi AF, Birnbaum ML, Kane JM, De Choudhury M. Linguistic Markers Indicating Therapeutic Outcomes of Social Media Disclosures of Schizophrenia. In: Proc ACM Hum Comput Interact. 2017. Presented at: Conference: Proceedings of the 21st ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing; 2017:1-27; New York, NY. [CrossRef]
  25. de Vries DA, Kühne R. Facebook and self-perception: Individual susceptibility to negative social comparison on Facebook. Pers Individ Diff. Nov 2015;86:217-221. [CrossRef]
  26. Lup K, Trub L, Rosenthal L. Instagram #instasad?: exploring associations among instagram use, depressive symptoms, negative social comparison, and strangers followed. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. May 2015;18(5):247-252. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  27. Nesi J, Prinstein MJ. Using Social Media for Social Comparison and Feedback-Seeking: Gender and Popularity Moderate Associations with Depressive Symptoms. J Abnorm Child Psychol. Nov 2015;43(8):1427-1438. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  28. Vogel EA, Rose JP, Roberts LR, Eckles K. Social comparison, social media, and self-esteem. Psychol Pop Media Cult. 2014;3(4):206-222. [CrossRef]
  29. Feinstein BA, Hershenberg R, Bhatia V, Latack JA, Meuwly N, Davila J. Negative social comparison on Facebook and depressive symptoms: Rumination as a mechanism. Psychol Pop Media Cult. 2013;2(3):161-170. [CrossRef]
  30. Wang JL, Wang HJ, Gaskin J, Hawk S. The Mediating Roles of Upward Social Comparison and Self-esteem and the Moderating Role of Social Comparison Orientation in the Association between Social Networking Site Usage and Subjective Well-Being. Front Psychol. May 11, 2017;8:771. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  31. Grieve R, Indian M, Witteveen K, Anne Tolan G, Marrington J. Face-to-face or Facebook: Can social connectedness be derived online? Comput Human Behav. May 2013;29(3):604-609. [CrossRef]
  32. Tandoc EC, Ferrucci P, Duffy M. Facebook use, envy, and depression among college students: Is facebooking depressing? Comput Human Behav. Feb 2015;43:139-146. [CrossRef]
  33. Charoensukmongkol P. Mindful Facebooking: The moderating role of mindfulness on the relationship between social media use intensity at work and burnout. J Health Psychol. Sep 2016;21(9):1966-1980. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  34. Blackwell L, Hardy J, Ammari T, Veinot T, Lampe C, Schoenebeck S. Proc 20 CHI Conf Hum Factors Comput Syst. New York, New York, USA. ACM Press; 2016. URL: [accessed 2018-06-06] [WebCite Cache]
  35. Haimson O, Brubaker J, Dombrowski L, Hayes G. Proc 18th ACM Conf Comput Support Coop Work Soc Comput. New York, New York, USA. ACM Press; 2015. URL: [accessed 2018-06-06] [WebCite Cache]
  36. Seabrook EM, Kern ML, Rickard NS. Social Networking Sites, Depression, and Anxiety: A Systematic Review. JMIR Ment Health. Nov 23, 2016;3(4):e50. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  37. Burke M, Kraut RE. The Relationship Between Facebook Use and Well-Being Depends on Communication Type and Tie Strength. J Comput Mediat Comm. Jul 26, 2016;21(4):265-281. [CrossRef]
  38. Meyer IH. Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychol Bull. Sep 2003;129(5):674-697. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  39. Marshal MP, Dermody SS, Cheong J, Burton CM, Friedman MS, Aranda F, et al. Trajectories of depressive symptoms and suicidality among heterosexual and sexual minority youth. J Youth Adolesc. Aug 2013;42(8):1243-1256. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  40. Rendina HJ, Gamarel KE, Pachankis JE, Ventuneac A, Grov C, Parsons JT. Extending the Minority Stress Model to Incorporate HIV-Positive Gay and Bisexual Men's Experiences: a Longitudinal Examination of Mental Health and Sexual Risk Behavior. Ann Behav Med. Apr 2017;51(2):147-158. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  41. Primack BA, Escobar-Viera CG. Social Media as It Interfaces with Psychosocial Development and Mental Illness in Transitional Age Youth. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. Apr 2017;26(2):217-233. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  42. Jelenchick LA, Eickhoff JC, Moreno MA. “Facebook depression?” social networking site use and depression in older adolescents. J Adolesc Health. Jan 2013;52(1):128-130. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  43. Moreno MA, Jelenchick LA, Egan KG, Cox E, Young H, Gannon KE, et al. Feeling bad on Facebook: depression disclosures by college students on a social networking site. Depress Anxiety. Jun 2011;28(6):447-455. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  44. Torous J, Keshavan M. The role of social media in schizophrenia: evaluating risks, benefits, and potential. Curr Opin Psychiatry. May 2016;29(3):190-195. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  45. Pavalanathan U, De Choudhury M. Identity Management and Mental Health Discourse in Social Media. Proc Int World Wide Web Conf. May 2015;2015(Companion):315-321. [FREE Full text] [Medline]
  46. Naslund JA, Aschbrenner KA, Marsch LA, Bartels SJ. The future of mental health care: peer-to-peer support and social media. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. Apr 2016;25(2):113-122. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  47. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700. [FREE Full text] [Medline]
  48. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. Jul 21, 2009;6(7):e1000097. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  49. Sykes S. Evidence Partners. Jun 09, 2016. URL: [accessed 2018-06-06] [WebCite Cache]
  50. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22(3):276-282. [FREE Full text] [Medline]
  51. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med. Oct 16, 2007;147(8):573-577. [Medline]
  52. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al. STROBE Initiative. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. Oct 16, 2007;4(10):e297. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  53. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. Dec 2007;19(6):349-357. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  54. Morelli M, Bianchi D, Baiocco R, Pezzuti L, Chirumbolo A. Sexting, psychological distress and dating violence among adolescents and young adults. Psicothema. May 2016;28(2):137-142. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  55. Gibbs JJ, Rice E. The Social Context of Depression Symptomology in Sexual Minority Male Youth: Determinants of Depression in a Sample of Grindr Users. J Homosex. 2016;63(2):278-299. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  56. Cénat JM, Blais M, Hébert M, Lavoie F, Guerrier M. Correlates of bullying in Quebec high school students: The vulnerability of sexual-minority youth. J Affect Disord. Sep 01, 2015;183:315-321. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  57. Duong J, Bradshaw C. Associations between bullying and engaging in aggressive and suicidal behaviors among sexual minority youth: the moderating role of connectedness. J Sch Health. Oct 2014;84(10):636-645. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  58. Lester D. Sexual orientation and suicidal behavior. Psychol Rep. Dec 2006;99(3):923-924. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  59. Cooper RM, Blumenfeld WJ. Responses to Cyberbullying: A Descriptive Analysis of the Frequency of and Impact on LGBT and Allied Youth. Journal of LGBT Youth. Apr 2012;9(2):153-177. [CrossRef]
  60. Ceglarek PJ, Ward LM. A tool for help or harm? How associations between social networking use, social support, and mental health differ for sexual minority and heterosexual youth. Comput Human Behav. Dec 2016;65:201-209. [CrossRef]
  61. Ramsey J, DiLalla L, McCrary M. Cyber victimization and depressive symptoms in sexual minority college students. In: J Sch Violence. London, United Kingdom. Taylor & Francis United Kingdom; 2016:483.
  62. Rubin JD, McClelland SI. 'Even though it's a small checkbox, it's a big deal': stresses and strains of managing sexual identity(s) on Facebook. Cult Health Sex. 2015;17(4):512-526. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  63. Alang SM, Fomotar M. Postpartum Depression in an Online Community of Lesbian Mothers: Implications for Clinical Practice. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health. Jan 23, 2015;19(1):21-39. [CrossRef]
  64. Homan CM, Lu N, Tu X, Lytle MC, Silenzio VMB. Social Structure and Depression in TrevorSpace. CSCW Conf Comput Support Coop Work. Dec 2014;2014:615-625. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  65. Pew Research Center. Feb 05, 2018. URL: [accessed 2018-06-06] [WebCite Cache]
  66. Baker DA, Algorta GP. The Relationship Between Online Social Networking and Depression: A Systematic Review of Quantitative Studies. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. Nov 2016;19(11):638-648. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  67. Lewandowski J, Rosenberg B, Parks M, Siegel J. The effect of informal social support: Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication. Comput Human Behav. 2011;27(5):1806-1814. [CrossRef]
  68. Ybarra ML, Mitchell KJ, Palmer NA, Reisner SL. Online social support as a buffer against online and offline peer and sexual victimization among U.S. LGBT and non-LGBT youth. Child Abuse Negl. Jan 2015;39:123-136. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  69. McConnell EA, Birkett MA, Mustanski B. Typologies of Social Support and Associations with Mental Health Outcomes Among LGBT Youth. LGBT Health. Mar 2015;2(1):55-61. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  70. Naja WJ, Kansoun AH, Haddad RS. Prevalence of Depression in Medical Students at the Lebanese University and Exploring its Correlation With Facebook Relevance: A Questionnaire Study. JMIR Res Protoc. May 31, 2016;5(2):e96. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  71. Szymanski D. Heterosexism and Sexism as Correlates of Psychological Distress in Lesbians. J Couns Dev. 2005;83(3):360. [CrossRef]
  72. Kelleher C. Minority stress and health: Implications for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) young people. Couns Pyschol Q. 2009:373-379. [CrossRef]
  73. Russell ST, Fish JN. Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Youth. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2016;12:465-487. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  74. Mustanski B, Andrews R, Herrick A, Stall R, Schnarrs PW. A syndemic of psychosocial health disparities and associations with risk for attempting suicide among young sexual minority men. Am J Public Health. Feb 2014;104(2):287-294. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  75. Marshal MP, Dietz LJ, Friedman MS, Stall R, Smith HA, McGinley J, et al. Suicidality and depression disparities between sexual minority and heterosexual youth: a meta-analytic review. J Adolesc Health. Aug 2011;49(2):115-123. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  76. Kertzner RM, Meyer IH, Frost DM, Stirratt MJ. Social and psychological well-being in lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals: the effects of race, gender, age, and sexual identity. Am J Orthopsychiatry. Oct 2009;79(4):500-510. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  77. Doty ND, Willoughby BLB, Lindahl KM, Malik NM. Sexuality related social support among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. J Youth Adolesc. Oct 2010;39(10):1134-1147. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  78. Lin YJ, Israel T. Development and validation of a Psychological Sense of LGBT Community Scale. J Community Psychol. Jun 04, 2012;40(5):573-587. [CrossRef]
  79. Yao T, Zheng Q, Fan X. The Impact of Online Social Support on Patients’ Quality of Life and the Moderating Role of Social Exclusion. J Serv Res. May 08, 2015;18(3):369-383. [CrossRef]
  80. Patterson JG, Jabson JM, Bowen DJ. Measuring Sexual and Gender Minority Populations in Health Surveillance. LGBT Health. Apr 2017;4(2):82-105. [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
  81. Mollon L. The forgotten minorities: health disparities of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered communities. J Health Care Poor Underserved. Feb 2012;23(1):1-6. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  82. Whitfield D, Walls N, Langenderfer-Magruder L, Clark B. Queer Is the New Black? Not So Much: Racial Disparities in Anti-LGBTQ Discrimination. J Gay Lesbian Soc Serv. 2014:426-440. [CrossRef]

COREQ-32: Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research
LGB: lesbian, gay, and bisexual
LGBQ: lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning
LGBT: lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
LGBTQ: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning
LGBTQI: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex
MeSH: Medical Subject Headings
STROBE: Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology

Edited by J Torous; submitted 23.03.18; peer-reviewed by B Bie, SK Ernala, N Machado; comments to author 03.05.18; revised version received 18.05.18; accepted 01.06.18; published 23.07.18.


©César G Escobar-Viera, Darren L Whitfield, Charles B Wessel, Ariel Shensa, Jaime E Sidani, Andre L Brown, Cristian J Chandler, Beth L Hoffman, Michael P Marshal, Brian A Primack. Originally published in JMIR Mental Health (, 23.07.2018.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Mental Health, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.