The study is a bibliometric analysis, a method that treats the scientific literature itself as the object of investigation. Rather than synthesizing findings from individual experiments, bibliometrics measures the shape of a field: how many papers are published each year, who writes them, where they appear, which journals carry the most cited work, and which concepts cluster together across thousands of studies. Lițan searched three of the largest scholarly databases, the Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, and PubMed, for publications dated between January 1, 2014 and June 20, 2024. The initial search returned 2,287 publications, which were then screened down to 1,606 studies that met the criteria for inclusion.

The technical machinery behind the analysis came from the Biblioshiny application, a graphical interface built on the Bibliometrix package in the R statistical environment. Two complementary strands of analysis were performed. The first, performance analysis, quantified scientific production over time, mapped author affiliations, identified the most cited journals, and traced collaboration networks between institutions and countries. The second, thematic analysis, examined keyword frequency, tracked how research trends shifted year by year, built co-occurrence networks showing which concepts are studied together, and constructed thematic maps that plot research themes according to their prominence and degree of internal development.

The headline finding is a substantial and sustained increase in research output across the study period. Publications linking digital transformation to mental health did not grow in a linear trickle; the field expanded markedly as smartphones, social media platforms, remote work arrangements, and digital health tools became everyday realities. This growth reflects a broader recognition that psychological wellbeing is no longer separable from digital life. As societies digitized, researchers increasingly asked whether the same technologies that promise convenience and connection might also carry costs for mood, anxiety, attention, and social relationships.

The analysis also reveals a strongly uneven geography of scholarship. Key contributors and collaboration patterns cluster in particular regions and institutions, meaning that the questions asked about digital life and mental health have been shaped disproportionately by a limited set of research communities. This matters because the psychological consequences of digitalization are not uniform across the globe. Patterns of technology adoption, labor market structures, cultural attitudes toward online life, and access to digital mental health services all vary widely, and a literature concentrated in a handful of countries risks producing conclusions that travel poorly to other contexts.

Perhaps the most striking contribution of the study is its map of what the literature has ignored. Lițan identifies significant gaps concerning the relationship between mental health and emerging components of digitalization, specifically remote work, the Internet of Things, virtual reality, and blockchain. These are not marginal technologies. Remote work became the default mode of employment for millions of people almost overnight during the pandemic era, yet its psychological effects remain comparatively underexplored in this body of literature. The Internet of Things now embeds sensors and connected devices into homes, workplaces, and even wearables that track physiological and behavioral data continuously. Virtual reality has moved from gaming into clinical settings for exposure therapy and rehabilitation. Blockchain underpins new economic and social infrastructures. Each of these technologies reshapes daily routines, social interaction, and stress exposure in ways that psychology has only begun to measure.

The thematic analysis shows a field in motion. Keyword trends and longitudinal thematic evolution indicate that research directions have emerged rapidly in response to technological advances, with artificial intelligence and digital environments standing out as the fastest-growing frontiers. This is where the study’s timing becomes especially significant. The analysis deliberately captures the field up to mid-2024, providing a baseline snapshot before the accelerated expansion of AI-driven research that followed. Large language models and generative AI systems have since flooded both public discourse and the scientific literature, and the study documents precisely what the research landscape looked like at the moment that wave began to build.

That baseline has practical value for researchers and funders alike. Knowing which themes dominated the decade from 2014 to 2024, and which were neglected, allows the field to prioritize deliberately rather than chase each new technology as it arrives. The findings carry implications for mental health research prioritization, for clinical awareness among practitioners whose patients increasingly live digitally saturated lives, and for the development of evidence-based interventions designed to address the psychological impact of emerging digital technologies. Without a clear map of what is known and unknown, clinical guidance risks lagging far behind the technologies patients actually use.

The methodological approach also deserves attention from anyone following how science studies itself. By combining performance metrics with thematic mapping, the study avoids the narrowness of simple publication counts. Co-occurrence networks expose the conceptual architecture of the field, showing which ideas are tightly integrated and which sit at the periphery. Thematic maps distinguish mature, well-developed research themes from emerging or declining ones, offering a dynamic picture rather than a static census. This dual lens is what makes the identified gaps credible: they emerge from the structure of the literature itself rather than from any single reviewer’s judgment.

As digital transformation accelerates, the questions raised by this analysis will only grow more urgent. The decade from 2014 to 2024 established digital transformation and mental health as a legitimate and rapidly growing research area, but it also left large territories uncharted, from the psychological toll of always-on connectivity in remote work to the mental health dimensions of ambient sensing and immersive virtual environments. With artificial intelligence now reshaping the research agenda at unprecedented speed, the study serves as both a record of where the field has been and a warning about where it has yet to go. The full open access article, published in Discover Psychology, is available for researchers, clinicians, and policymakers who need a rigorous starting point for navigating the psychological consequences of an increasingly digital world.

Subject of Research: Bibliometric analysis of research trends on digital transformation and mental health from 2014 to 2024

Article Title: Bibliometric analysis of research trends in digital transformation and mental health from 2014 to 2024

Article References: Lițan, D.-E. (2026). Bibliometric analysis of research trends in digital transformation and mental health from 2014 to 2024. Discover Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-026-00891-5

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s44202-026-00891-5

Keywords: bibliometrics, digital transformation, mental health, artificial intelligence, remote work, Internet of Things, virtual reality, blockchain, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, research trends