Common and specific risk factors for comorbidity types of problematic smartphone use in adolescents

Researchers have suggested several comorbid types of problematic smartphone use (PSU) exist. However, little is known about the commonalities and differences among comorbid types. This study aimed to identify comorbid PSU types based on cluster analysis and further examine the common and specific risk factors. The participants included 1292 adolescents (age:11-18 y/o; female: 45.28%). Cluster analysis results identified four types of PSU, including multiple problematic use, problematic online gaming/smartphone use, problematic social networking sites/smartphone use, and PSU only. Compared to non-addictive adolescents, all PSU types revealed higher perceived stress, social anxiety, depression, and avoidant coping styles/escapism. However, distinctive PSU types might have their unique specific risk factors, such as gender, high use expectancy and low refusal self-efficacy of certain smartphone/internet activities. Further stepwise logistic regression analyses results showed that perceived stress and social anxiety were the common stronger risk factors for all comorbid types of PSU whereas perceived stress and depression were the significant risk factors for the stand-alone type of PSU. Conversely, gender, the high positive expectancy and low refusal self-efficacy of using certain online activities predicted the specific type of problematic smartphone use respectively. This study gives the first empirical ev-idence of PSU comorbid classification, providing better insights for developing precise PSU prevention strategies.

Automated summary

Researchers identified several comorbid types of problematic smartphone use (PSU) and explored their commonalities and differences. The study found four types of PSU, including multiple problematic use, problematic online gaming/smartphone use, problematic social networking sites/smartphone use, and PSU only. These types showed higher perceived stress, social anxiety, depression, and avoidant coping styles. However, they also had unique risk factors such as gender, high use expectancy, and low refusal self-efficacy.