2.1 Methodological Approaches in Current Literature
Methodological rigour in synthesising digital wellbeing research demands a structured framework capable of reconciling divergent empirical paradigms. As established by umbrella review methodologies in this domain (OSF, 2021), the integration of findings across diverse observational cohorts necessitates systematic screening criteria to mitigate heterogeneity in exposure metrics and outcome assessments. Recent systematic reviews spanning 2015 to 2024 demonstrate that qualitative dimensions of identity formation interact continuously with quantitative indicators of psychological distress (IJSR, 2025). Consequently, the present methodological architecture adopts a systematic narrative synthesis approach, aligned with established review protocols that evaluate symptoms of depression and anxiety alongside contextual digital practices (PubMed, 2024). This synthesis protocol operates through predefined eligibility thresholds, categorising studies by developmental demographics, validated psychometric instruments, and specific digital engagement typologies. By standardising qualitative and quantitative data extraction across both cross-sectional and longitudinal investigations, the analytical framework addresses critical risks of methodological bias while facilitating a nuanced thematic appraisal of evidence. Furthermore, the systematic collation of narrative evidence provides the analytical depth required to interrogate complex mediating mechanisms, ensuring that findings reflect structural digital influences rather than oversimplified correlational assumptions within adolescent wellbeing research.