A scoping review maps the habits, skills, and environments tied to digital well-being in higher education learners.

Digital learning is not just screen time. Habits matter. So do confidence and support.

Quick summary

• What the study found: The scoping review The digital well-being among learners in higher education: a scoping review identified eight connected elements of digital well-being among higher education learners.
• Why it matters: Digital self-regulation and digital self-efficacy may shape how students handle online learning, communication, resources, and safety.
• What to be careful about: This review maps existing evidence. It does not prove that any one habit or digital feature causes better well-being.

Eight parts of digital well-being stood out

The review searched peer-reviewed literature from January 2018 to October 2023. It included 34 articles, drawn from 348 initially identified records.

Those studies covered 10,838 undergraduate and postgraduate students from 23 countries. Among studies reporting age, participants ranged from 17 to 48 years.

The authors identified eight themes: digital self-regulation, self-efficacy, intention, conduct, engagement, support, resources, and safety.

Confidence may be the enabling piece

Digital self-efficacy means a learner’s confidence in using digital tools and environments. The review describes it as a central enabling component in the proposed framework.

That matters because confidence can affect whether a student engages meaningfully with online platforms, digital materials, and technology-mediated learning tasks.

The review also found that poor digital self-regulation was the most frequently reported source of adverse outcomes.

The everyday pattern is familiar beyond campus

The evidence is about higher education learners, but the pattern is easy to recognise. Many adults manage work, study, banking, health forms, and relationships through screens.

Digital well-being, in this paper, is not framed as one problem. It is shaped by individual capabilities, behaviour patterns, and digital environments.

That broader view is useful. It moves the issue beyond blaming a person for distraction or blaming technology for every difficulty.

Use the framework without turning it into a diagnosis

For readers, the safest takeaway is reflective. Digital strain may relate to how people plan, focus, seek help, access resources, and stay safe online.

This is not a checklist for diagnosing yourself or someone else. The paper does not test a treatment or intervention.

It also does not say that self-regulation alone explains well-being. Support, resources, engagement, confidence, conduct, and safety all belong in the picture.

What this review can and cannot settle

Scoping reviews are useful for mapping a research area. They are less suited to proving cause and effect or ranking which factor matters most.

The authors note that digital conduct and digital safety were underexplored. Evidence for their direct impact on well-being remained limited.

The careful takeaway is simple: digital well-being in students appears multidimensional. Better future measures and context-sensitive support may need to reflect that complexity.