A digital break does not work through the off switch alone
Two trials show benefits of limited smartphone use. They also show how hard it is to keep up – and what cannot be concluded from them.
The smartphone lies face down on the table. For one afternoon it is not supposed to determine when the gaze wanders away from the book or from the person opposite. Such a digital break sounds simple. Scientifically, the question is more complicated: what exactly is interrupted, how long does the change last – and what takes the place of the previous use?
Two randomised studies published in 2025 offer interesting pointers here. They suggest that limited smartphone use can have benefits. At the same time they show why the buzzword digital detox follows neither a universal health promise nor a proven effect of a single Sunday.
Two weeks without internet on the phone
In a study in PNAS Nexus, 467 participants were asked to block their smartphone's internet access for two weeks. Calls and text messages remained possible, as did internet access on other devices. So what was examined was not a complete renunciation of digital communication.
The researchers reported improvements in subjective well-being, in mental health measures and in a test of sustained attention. Randomised assignment strengthens the informative value compared with a mere survey of whether people with less screen time are more satisfied.
The implementation, however, proved difficult: 119 people, around a quarter of the original 467, met the criterion of keeping the block in place on at least ten of the fourteen days. That does not make the study meaningless. But it limits the notion that most people could easily adopt such a change. Measured effect and everyday feasibility are two different questions.
What happens after the trial
A second trial in BMC Medicine examined a limit of at most two hours of smartphone use per day over three weeks. The analysed sample comprised 111 healthy students with an average age of just under 23. The researchers found improvements in several recorded mental health indicators.
After the limit ended, however, use rose again. From week seven onwards there was no longer any difference in screen time between the groups. The result points to a difficulty that affects many behaviour changes: a temporary rule is not yet a lasting habit.
The study was also not blinded. Participants knew whether they were supposed to restrict their use. And a young student sample represents neither the whole Swiss population nor people with very different professional and family obligations. The results are pointers, not a general dosage instruction.
A Sunday is a different experiment
Anyone who wants to derive a screen-free Sunday from this changes several conditions at once. The break is shorter, calls may be excluded, and professional availability may be out of the question anyway. A positive result from a multi-week trial cannot simply be transferred to this different situation.
Even so, a deliberately designed afternoon can have personal insight value. The helpful question would be less whether one reached the lowest possible number. Rather, it would be which use was missed, which interruptions fell away and whether the free time was actually spent differently. That is self-observation, not scientific proof of efficacy.
The alternative counts as well. A conversation, sleep, a walk or work on a laptop are different activities. Anyone who measures only the minutes on one device does not capture these shifts in full. A break can therefore be sensibly planned without turning into a moral ranking of good and bad screen time.
Availability can be regulated more precisely
For everyday life, separating the functions is revealing. The smartphone can be conversation channel, timetable, camera and endless news stream all at once. One person might want to reduce interruptions from social media without becoming unreachable for relatives. Another needs navigation but does not want to keep working on the side.
The studies do not justify medical advice to switch off all functions. Rather, they invite a closer look at the specific habit. Which interruption disturbs? Which function is really needed? And is the chosen limit designed so that it remains practicable next week too?
The strongest insight therefore does not lie in a ban for Sunday. It lies in the possibility of making constant availability changeable. An off switch can help with that. What happens to the time afterwards is part of the story as well.
