| Literature DB >> 34908688 |
Sana Dhamija1, B Shailaja2, Bhushan Chaudhari1, Suprakash Chaudhury1, Daniel Saldanha1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Use of smartphone is on the increase worldwide. They have revolutionized our lives to an extent that was unimaginable before the pandemic. Excessive use of smartphones reaching the levels of potential addiction among medical students and its relation to individual's sleep quality and self-esteem led us to study this prevalence. AIM: This stuay aimed to study the prevalence of smartphone addiction and its relation with self-esteem and sleep disturbance in medical college students.Entities:
Keywords: Medical students; self-esteem; sleep; smartphone
Year: 2021 PMID: 34908688 PMCID: PMC8611562 DOI: 10.4103/0972-6748.328813
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ind Psychiatry J ISSN: 0972-6748
Comparison of age, age of acquiring phone, and age of using smartphone in boys and girls
| Variables | Mean | SD |
| df |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | |||||
| Boys | 20.021 | 1.973 | 0.576 | 497 | 0.565 (NS) |
| Girls | 19.919 | 1.889 | |||
| Age of the first phone | |||||
| Boys | 13.742 | 2.126 | −2.859 | 497 | 0.004 (S) |
| Girls | 14.313 | 2.195 | |||
| Age of first smartphone | |||||
| Boys | 15.78 | 1.408 | −1.035 | 497 | 0.301 (NS) |
| Girls | 16.233 | 5.943 |
NS – Not significant; S – Significant; SD – Standard deviation
Comparison of characteristics of smartphone use
| Characteristics | Boys | Girls |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Use during | ||||
| Day | 17 | 54 | 7.012 | 0.008 (S) |
| Night | 173 | 255 | ||
| Mode | ||||
| WiFi | 26 | 27 | 3.032 | 0.082 (NS) |
| Data card | 164 | 282 | ||
| Place | ||||
| Residence | 18 | 55 | 6.53 | 0.011 (S) |
| Hostel | 172 | 254 |
NS – Not significant; S – Significant
Comparison of smartphone addiction scale, Rosenberg self-esteem scale, and Pittsburgh sleep quality assessment scores between boys and girls
| Mean | SD | Minimum | Maximum | Mann-Whitney U |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SAS | ||||||
| Boys | 31.837 | 7.767 | 12.0 | 52.0 | 27,586.500 | 0.258 (NS) |
| Girls | 30.709 | 8.202 | 10.0 | 50.0 | ||
| RSES | ||||||
| Boys | 20.568 | 6.376 | 12.0 | 36.0 | 27,605.500 | 0.262 (NS) |
| Girls | 21.275 | 6.467 | 10.0 | 38.0 | ||
| PSQI | ||||||
| Boys | 4.811 | 3.007 | 0.00 | 12.0 | 28,573.500 | 0.615 (NS) |
| Girls | 4.608 | 2.868 | 0.00 | 18.0 |
NS – Not significant; SD – Standard deviation; PSQI – Pittsburgh sleep quality assessment; RSES – Rosenberg self-esteem scale; SAS – PSQI – Pittsburgh sleep quality assessment; RSES – Rosenberg self-esteem scale; SAS – Smartphone addiction scale
Comparison of number of boys (n=190) and girls (n=309) with smartphone addiction, low self-esteem, and sleep quality
| Variable | Boys, | Girls, |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Smartphone addiction | ||||
| Yes | 110 (58) | 147 (47) | 5.02 | 0.025 (S) |
| No | 80 | 162 | ||
| Low self-esteem | ||||
| Yes | 53 (28) | 75 (24) | 0.809 | 0.368 (NS) |
| No | 137 | 234 | ||
| Poor sleep quality | ||||
| Yes | 97 (51) | 164 (53) | 0.193 | 0.661 (NS) |
| No | 93 | 145 |
NS – Not significant; S – Significant
Figure 1Comparison of smartphone addiction, self-esteem, and sleep quality among undergraduate medical students
Prevalence of low self-esteem and sleep disturbance in medical undergraduates with and without smartphone addiction
| Variables | Medical undergraduates, addiction ( |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| With smartphone | Without smartphone | |||
| Low self-esteem | 82 (31.54) | 68 (28.33) | 0.611 | 0.435 (NS) |
| Sleep disturbance | 180 (69.23) | 70 (29.17) | 80.128 | <0.00001 (S) |
NS – Not significant; S – Significant
Spearman’s correlations between smartphone addiction, self-esteem, and sleep quality
| Age of first phone | Age of first smartphone | SAS | RSES | PSQI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age of first phone | |||||
| Correlation coefficient | 1.000 | 0.644** | 0.098* | −0.084 | −0.005 |
| Significant (two tailed) | 0.000 | 0.028 | 0.059 | 0.912 | |
| Age of first smartphone | |||||
| Correlation coefficient | 0.644** | 1.000 | 0.109* | −0.005 | 0.048 |
| Significant (two tailed) | 0.000 | 0.015 | 0.905 | 0.286 | |
| SAS | |||||
| Correlation coefficient | 0.098* | 0.109* | 1.000 | −0.251** | 0.388** |
| Significant (two tailed) | 0.028 | 0.015 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
| RSES | |||||
| Correlation coefficient | −0.084 | −0.005 | −0.251** | 1.000 | −0.294** |
| Significant (two tailed) | 0.059 | 0.905 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
| PSQI | |||||
| Correlation coefficient | −0.005 | 0.048 | 0.388** | −0.294** | 1.000 |
| Significant (two tailed) | 0.912 | 0.286 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
*Significant, **Highly significant. PSQI – Pittsburgh sleep quality assessment; RSES – Rosenberg self-esteem scale; SAS – Smartphone addiction scale
Multiple regression analysis to identify the predictors of smartphone addiction: Coefficientsa
| Model | Unstandardized coefficients | Standardized coefficients |
| Significance | 95.0% CI for B | Collinearity statistics | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| SE | Beta | Lower bound | Upper bound | Tolerance | VIF | ||||
| 3 | ||||||||||
| Constant | 26.649 | 2.668 | 9.987 | 0.000 | 21.406 | 31.892 | ||||
| PSQI | 0.928 | 0.118 | 0.337 | 7.881 | 0.000 | 0.697 | 1.160 | 0.909 | 1.100 | |
| RESTEEM | −0.197 | 0.054 | −0.157 | −3.664 | 0.000 | −0.302 | −0.091 | 0.903 | 1.107 | |
| AgeM | 0.303 | 0.151 | 0.082 | 2.007 | 0.045 | 0.006 | 0.599 | 0.991 | 1.009 | |
aDependent variable: SAS. SAS – Smartphone Addiction Scale; SE – Standard error; CI – Confidence interval; PSQI – Pittsburgh sleep quality assessment; RESTEEM – Rosenberg Self exteem scale; VIF – Variance Inflation Factor