At a moment when some are choosing to log off of their devices, billions of others are still waiting to log on—and that tension changes how we should interpret new research on digital well-being. A recent article from ICTworks highlights new research showing that blocking mobile internet access can make people happier, healthier, and more focused. It’s an important and thought-provoking piece, and the underlying research it draws on is both rigorous and valuable.

At the same time, the conversation it has sparked points to a critical distinction for those of us working in global development. In 2026, when billions of people still lack meaningful connectivity, that distinction matters more than ever: According to GSMA, “more than 3 billion people, representing just under 40% of the world’s population, remain unconnected, despite the fact that 96% of the global population now resides within areas served by mobile broadband network.” In other words, there is a sizeable portion of the world’s population for whom overuse is not an issue–the real problem is that they lack even the most  basic of access.

Phone overuse is not a universal issue, and caution must be taken when applying these lessons to contexts in which phone reach is still very limited.

Context Matters: Overuse vs. Under-Access

Within this new research, the study’s population consisted of adults in the United States and Canada, where digital saturation has already been reached, and where many are already motivated to reduce their smartphone use.In contrast, many low-income and underserved communities elsewhere in the world are navigating digital scarcity. Thus, the implications of connectivity look very different across these environments: In one, the challenge is maintaining abundance; in the other, it is overcoming constraints.

Recognizing this difference in contexts helps ensure that we draw the right lessons from the research and apply them appropriately.

Understanding When  Connectivity Is Beneficial

The study at the center of this discussion examines what happens when people in the United States and Canada temporarily block mobile internet access on their smartphones: Participants experienced measurable improvements in mental health, attention, and overall well-being.

This is an important finding. It offers clear evidence that constant, always-on connectivity can come with real psychological costs, particularly in highly connected environments. But there is an important nuance: participants were never fully disconnected.

Instead, they retained access to the internet through other devices and could still communicate via calls and texts. What changed was the intensity and immediacy of their connection, not whether they were connected at all. In that sense, the study is best understood as an exploration of how to manage connectivity, rather than whether connectivity itself is beneficial.

Reducing Overuse Is Not the Same as Limiting Access

The discussion that follows from this research can sometimes blur this distinction. The findings speak clearly to the benefits of reducing excessive or constant use, but they do not suggest that less access, in general, leads to better outcomes.

For many people around the world, particularly women, the challenge is not overuse, but access itself. In many places, connectivity remains intermittent, costly, shared across households, or entirely unavailable.

In these contexts, access is not something to be dialed back. It is something that is still being built. Many people do not have the option to “disconnect,” because they are not yet fully connected.

The Missing Counterfactual: The Cost of Disconnection

The study  rightly highlights the psychological costs of constant connectivity: chronic stress, anxiety, burnout, and reduced attention spans. But we also need to consider the other side of the equation: the cost of disconnection.  

In many of the communities we work with, smartphones are not primarily tools of distraction. They are tools of:

• Social connection—especially for women with limited mobility
• Market access—connecting people to customers and income opportunities
• Financial inclusion—through mobile money and savings platforms
• Access to services—health information, education, and government programs

In these contexts, connectivity can reduce isolation, expand opportunity, and increase agency. So, while constant connectivity may require better discipline in its use, lack of connectivity carries its own—and often more fundamental—consequences.

The Feature Phone Conversation

The ICTworks article also raises an interesting point about feature phones (basic phones designed solely for calls, texting, and basic functions), noting that they offer the benefits of connection without the constant digital stimulation.

Certainly, simpler technologies can, in some cases, support more focused or less distracting use. Yet, we shouldn’t overlook the benefits that smartphones can offer to those who have limited access to information and critical resources. Smartphones enable access to a broader set of tools and systems, including digital financial services, market platforms, information ecosystems, productivity tools, education platforms, and digital health services.

The research itself does not compare these technologies directly. Rather, it examines how changes in usage patterns affect outcomes among smartphone users. This suggests that our focus should not be on moving backward technologically, but on thinking more intentionally about how technology is used.

Reframing the Real Opportunity

Taken together, the research points to an important opportunity to support digital agency—people’s ability to use technology in ways that align with their goals, well-being, and livelihoods.

For some populations, this may involve setting boundaries around use and reducing constant exposure. For others, it means gaining access to digital tools and services in the first place. These are not competing priorities; they are complementary.

Technology with Intention

The study offers a valuable insight: the way we design and use technology matters. For those of us working in global development, the implication is not to step back from expanding access, but to expand it thoughtfully. We should be asking:

• How do we enable access that supports livelihoods, inclusion, and resilience?
• How do we promote healthy, intentional patterns of use?
• How do we ensure that connectivity expands opportunity without undermining well-being?

This is a more nuanced agenda than simply connecting or disconnecting people. In fact, we would argue it is a more accurate agenda, because the goal is not to decrease technology access, it is to obtain better outcomes from its use. Achieving that requires not stepping back from connectivity, but engaging with it more intentionally.

————–