SynthesisJMIR mental health2026
Parasocial Engagement With Social Media Influencers and Mental Health Outcomes: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in JMIR mental health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Social media influencers occupy a pervasive role in billions of users' daily digital lives, particularly among adolescents and young adults. Audiences develop parasocial engagement with these figures, including parasocial relationships (PSRs) and parasocial interactions (PSIs). Despite growing concern about their mental health implications, no prior meta-analysis has quantitatively synthesized this evidence. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the associations between influencer-directed parasocial engagement and mental health outcomes, examine prespecified moderators, and evaluate the quality of the existing evidence base. Methods: Seven databases (PsycINFO, Embase, MEDLINE, ERIC, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus) were searched from inception. Studies quantitatively assessing PSRs or PSIs with social media influencers and reporting mental health outcomes were eligible. A 3-level random-effects meta-analysis was conducted using Pearson Results: Seventeen studies (52 effect sizes) were included. Parasocial engagement was positively associated with both positive ( Conclusions: Parasocial engagement functions as a psychological double-edged sword, reliably linked to both enhanced well-being and problematic engagement. Positive mental health outcomes, particularly those involving well-being, were generally stronger and more consistent than negative ones. These findings suggest that parasocial engagement should not be understood as uniformly beneficial or harmful; rather, its psychological meaning depends on the outcome domain, parasocial construct type, developmental stage, and cultural context. Future longitudinal, mechanism-based research with diverse samples is needed to clarify when parasocial engagement is most beneficial or harmful.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.