Digital Stress: Insights from Bibliometric, Scientometric, Meta-Analytic and Thematic Analyses

TL;DR

Digital stress, a psychological strain from constant connectivity, is a growing and evolving field of study with distinct themes and measurement challenges.

Contribution

This study provides a comprehensive multi-method analysis of digital stress, clarifying its conceptual boundaries and validating the Digital Stress Scale.

Findings

Digital stress research has grown significantly since 2020 and is distinct from technostress.

Meta-analysis of the DSS showed a moderate pooled mean stress level with high heterogeneity due to cultural and contextual factors.

Thematic analysis identified four key dimensions: conceptual ambiguity, contextual moderators, digital transformation paradox, and digital well-being.

Abstract

Digital stress, the psychological strain from constant connectivity, is a growing challenge, but the research field remains conceptually fragmented. This study aims to (1) map the evolution of digital stress research via bibliometric and scientometric analyses; (2) quantify measurement consistency through a meta-analysis of the Digital Stress Scale (DSS); and (3) synthesize thematic trends to clarify the construct’s boundaries. A multi-method review was conducted, integrating bibliometric analysis of 215 documents (Scopus/WoS), Google Ngram analysis, a random-effects meta-analysis of 10 DSS studies (n = 8572), and a thematic analysis of keyword co-occurrence. Bibliometrics and Ngram analysis show the field is maturing, with publications rising sharply post-2020, distinguishing it from ‘technostress.’ The construct evolved from biomedical/engineering uses to a psychosocial concept linked to ‘social media’ and ‘mental health.’ The meta-analysis found a moderate pooled mean stress level (2.45 on a 1–5 scale, 95% CI: 2.12–2.78), falling within the ‘average’ range of U.S. norms. High heterogeneity (I2 = 99.7%) confirmed that cultural and contextual factors significantly moderate stress levels. Thematic analysis identified four key dimensions: conceptual ambiguity, contextual moderators, the digital transformation paradox, and digital well-being. Digital stress is a distinct, multidimensional construct encompassing social-evaluative pressures beyond original technostress models. This review consolidates its theoretical boundaries and confirms the DSS’s psychometric consistency, highlighting digital stress as a critical, context-dependent factor in human adaptation to technology.

Figures