University of Birmingham News Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
TikTok's design makes it harder for young people to think critically about the mental health content they see, new University of Birmingham research suggests.
With more than 550,000 children and young people in England waiting for mental health treatment , a new study reveals that the platform's design can make it difficult to distinguish trustworthy mental health advice from misleading content.
The findings, from the University of Birmingham, identify three main challenges in how young people respond to mental health content on TikTok: the distinction between relatable and reliable content, the belief that TikTok content is 'fun but fake', and that the algorithm design hinders critical thinking.
The research was conducted via interviews and group discussions with young people aged 16–25 from schools and colleges across England, and was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). It has been published in the journal Digital Health.
The findings come as the UK Government prepares to introduce new online safety rules, including overnight curfews and other platform restrictions for 16- and 17-year-olds from Spring 2027, and a nationwide social media ban for under 16s.
While the study was not designed to evaluate those measures, it suggests that the way social media platforms are designed—not simply the amount of time spent on them—plays an important role in shaping how young people engage with mental health information.
In a separate study, the researchers also analysed 27,000 TikTok videos and found that wellness influencers often recommend supplements to treat mental health issues, that there is a lack of engaging and helpful mental health content for young men, and that user-generated content around mental health is not always helpful to those looking for support or advice.
Professor Ruth Page, from the University of Birmingham and lead researcher on the study, said: "Young people are not passive users of social media; they are thoughtful and often sceptical about what they see. But our research shows that TikTok's design makes it much harder to apply that critical thinking in practice. What matters most to them is relatability, not just reliability, and that creates real risks when it comes to mental health advice."
Participants consistently described TikTok as a space for entertainment rather than serious learning, often characterising it as 'fun but fake'. The study found that they tended to rely on whether the person sharing mental health advice felt relatable and authentic, rather than engage with content from creators with professional expertise.
Although many participants said they tried to verify influencers' credibility, they often looked to follower numbers, comments or visual presentation instead of checking whether creators were registered with professional bodies such as the General Medical Council (GMC) or UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP). This gap in their knowledge left young people more vulnerable to misleading or unverified advice.
The study also found that TikTok's algorithm-driven design encourages rapid, passive consumption. Serious mental health videos can be immediately followed by unrelated entertainment, leaving little opportunity for reflection or critical evaluation. Although participants described trying to 'train' the algorithm by liking or skipping content, many found it inconsistent, with harmful material continuing to appear.
Despite being digitally confident, many participants were unaware of built-in safety features such as screen time controls or content filtering tools, suggesting important gaps in platform-specific media literacy.
The findings raise broader questions about the role of social media platforms in shaping young people's access to mental health information. While influencers are often seen as a potential route for public health communication, the study indicates that improving the quality of content alone will not address the issue. Instead, the design of the platform and how it structures attention, credibility and engagement play a critical role.
Professor Page continued: "If we are serious about supporting young people's wellbeing, we need to move beyond expecting them to navigate this alone. That means better media literacy that reflects how platforms actually work, clearer systems to verify trusted voices, and stronger accountability for the design of social media environments themselves."
The researchers argue that improving the quality of online mental health content alone will not be enough. They call for platform-specific media literacy education, clearer verification systems for mental health influencers, and greater responsibility from social media companies to design environments that better support young people's wellbeing.
