How Australia's social media minimum age law may reshape research recruitment for adolescents under 16.

Bridianne O'Dea, Isobelle McKenzie, Michelle Torok

Abstract readReview

In one paragraph

Review in The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Bridianne O'DeaFlinders University Institute for Mental Health and Wellbeing, College of Education, Psychology and Social Work, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia.

Isobelle McKenzieFlinders University Institute for Mental Health and Wellbeing, College of Education, Psychology and Social Work, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia.

Michelle TorokBlack Dog Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Social media is a popular recruitment tool for adolescent research as it can enable rapid, low-cost, and targeted enrolment. Australia's Online Safety Amendment Bill, which introduced a mandatory minimum age of 16 from December 2025, is likely to disrupt some researchers' ability to recruit adolescents aged 13-15 who are commonly accessed through these platforms. This viewpoint examines the implications of the legislation for recruitment feasibility, sample representativeness, and research equity in Australia, with flow-on effects for international studies. We identify three areas of impact: shifts in sample composition due to reduced reach; increased reliance on gatekeeper-mediated recruitment, with potential risks to participation privacy, and sample diversity; and greater operational complexity, longer timelines, and higher costs. We highlight opportunities to strengthen youth-centred research infrastructure, including establishing a national youth research registry, supporting multi-modal recruitment through expanded funding and timelines, and advancing ethical, developmentally appropriate consent pathways that minimise gatekeeping.

Indexed as

AdolescentHealth policyInformed consentResearch subject recruitmentSocial media

Identifiers

PMID41810386

DOI10.1016/j.lanwpc.2026.101822

PMCPMC12969804

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.