Dataset Information

A systematic review on nomophobia prevalence: Surfacing results and standard guidelines for future research.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Mobile phones allow us to stay connected with others and provide us a sense of security. We can work, chat with family and friends, take pictures, buy clothes or books, and even control home appliances. They play such a significant role in our lives that we feel anxious without them. In some cases, the relationship between humans and these communication devices have become problematic. Nomophobia (NMP) is the fear of becoming incommunicable, separated from the mobile phone and losing connection to the Internet. Since this social phobia was coined in the first decade of the XXI century, a growing number of studies have studied it and reported the prevalence of this technology-related problem. However, this research activity has generated mixed results regarding how we assess and report nomophobia and who may be at a higher risk of suffering or developing it.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of 108 studies published in English and Spanish and collected them in Parsifal. We searched for assessment and prevalence data on nomophobia. Also, we looked at gender and age differences to identify risk factors and see if these differences exist and emerge worldwide.

Results

In this study, we find that women and younger individuals suffer more from nomophobia. The disparity in reporting the prevalence of nomophobia is enormous since the percentages of "at-risk" participants go from 13% to 79%, and participants suffering from it are between 6% and 73%, being the score in the range of 45.5 and 93.82. Within the group of nomophobic people, moderate cases vary between 25.7% and 73.3%, and severe cases, between 1% and 87%. Such disparity is due to differences in assessment criteria. Females and young people seem to be more vulnerable to nomophobia although methodological disparity makes it difficult to reach definitive conclusions. We conclude our review by recommending some common guidelines for guiding future research.

SUBMITTER: Leon-Mejia AC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8130950 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Depression is a major public health problem among youth, currently estimated to affect as many as 9% of US children and adolescents. The recognition that both genes (nature) and environments (nurture) are important for understanding the etiology of depression has led to a rapid growth in research exploring gene-environment interactions (GxE). However, there has been no systematic review of GxE in youth depression to date.The goal of this article was to systematically review evidence on the contribution of GxE to the risk of child and adolescent depression. Through a search of PubMed and PsycINFO databases to 1 April 2010, we identified 20 candidate gene-environment interaction studies focused on depression in youth (up to age 26) and compared each study in terms of the following characteristics: research design and sample studied; measure of depression and environment used; genes explored; and GxE findings in relation to these factors.In total, 80% of studies (n = 16) found at least one significant GxE association. However, there was wide variation in methods and analyses adopted across studies, especially with respect to environmental measures used and tests conducted to estimate GxE. This heterogeneity made it difficult to compare findings and evaluate the strength of the evidence for GxE.The existing body of GxE research on depression in youth contains studies that are conceptually and methodologically quite different, which contributes to mixed findings and makes it difficult to assess the current state of the evidence. To decrease this heterogeneity, we offer 20 recommendations that are focused on: (a) reporting GxE research; (b) testing and reporting GxE effects; (c) conceptualizing, measuring and analyzing depression; (d) conceptualizing, measuring and analyzing environment; (e) increasing power to test for GxE; and (f) improving the quality of genetic data used. Although targeted to GxE research on depression, these recommendations can be adopted by GxE researchers focusing on other mental health outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundApplications of artificial intelligence (AI) are pervasive in modern biomedical science. In fact, research results suggesting algorithms and AI models for different target diseases and conditions are continuously increasing. While this situation undoubtedly improves the outcome of AI models, health care providers are increasingly unsure which AI model to use due to multiple alternatives for a specific target and the "black box" nature of AI. Moreover, the fact that studies rarely use guidelines in developing and reporting AI models poses additional challenges in trusting and adapting models for practical implementation.ObjectiveThis review protocol describes the planned steps and methods for a review of the synthesized evidence regarding the quality of available guidelines and frameworks to facilitate AI applications in medicine.MethodsWe will commence a systematic literature search using medical subject headings terms for medicine, guidelines, and machine learning (ML). All available guidelines, standard frameworks, best practices, checklists, and recommendations will be included, irrespective of the study design. The search will be conducted on web-based repositories such as PubMed, Web of Science, and the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) network. After removing duplicate results, a preliminary scan for titles will be done by 2 reviewers. After the first scan, the reviewers will rescan the selected literature for abstract review, and any incongruities about whether to include the article for full-text review or not will be resolved by the third and fourth reviewer based on the predefined criteria. A Google Scholar (Google LLC) search will also be performed to identify gray literature. The quality of identified guidelines will be evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool. A descriptive summary and narrative synthesis will be carried out, and the details of critical appraisal and subgroup synthesis findings will be presented.ResultsThe results will be reported using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses) reporting guidelines. Data analysis is currently underway, and we anticipate finalizing the review by November 2023.ConclusionsGuidelines and recommended frameworks for developing, reporting, and implementing AI studies have been developed by different experts to facilitate the reliable assessment of validity and consistent interpretation of ML models for medical applications. We postulate that a guideline supports the assessment of an ML model only if the quality and reliability of the guideline are high. Assessing the quality and aspects of available guidelines, recommendations, checklists, and frameworks-as will be done in the proposed review-will provide comprehensive insights into current gaps and help to formulate future research directions.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/47105.

Project description:BackgroundThe role of the human microbiome in health and disease is an emerging and important area of research; however, there is a concern that African populations are under-represented in human microbiome studies. We, therefore, conducted a systematic survey of African human microbiome studies to provide an overview and identify research gaps. Our secondary objectives were: (i) to determine the number of peer-reviewed publications; (ii) to identify the extent to which the researches focused on diseases identified by the World Health Organization [WHO] State of Health in the African Region Report as being the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in 2018; (iii) to describe the extent and pattern of collaborations between researchers in Africa and the rest of the world; and (iv) to identify leadership and funders of the studies.MethodologyWe systematically searched Medline via PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Academic Search Premier, Africa-Wide Information through EBSCOhost, and Web of Science from inception through to 1st April 2020. We included studies that characterized samples from African populations using next-generation sequencing approaches. Two reviewers independently conducted the literature search, title and abstract, and full-text screening, as well as data extraction.ResultsWe included 168 studies out of 5515 records retrieved. Most studies were published in PLoS One (13%; 22/168), and samples were collected from 33 of the 54 African countries. The country where most studies were conducted was South Africa (27/168), followed by Kenya (23/168) and Uganda (18/168). 26.8% (45/168) focused on diseases of significant public health concern in Africa. Collaboration between scientists from the United States of America and Africa was most common (96/168). The first and/or last authors of 79.8% of studies were not affiliated with institutions in Africa. Major funders were the United States of America National Institutes of Health (45.2%; 76/168), Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (17.8%; 30/168), and the European Union (11.9%; 20/168).ConclusionsThere are significant gaps in microbiome research in Africa, especially those focusing on diseases of public health importance. There is a need for local leadership, capacity building, intra-continental collaboration, and national government investment in microbiome research within Africa. Video Abstract.

Project description:IntroductionOver 25 years, emergency medicine in the United States has amassed a large evidence base that has been systematically assessed and interpreted through ACEP Clinical Policies. While not previously studied in emergency medicine, prior work has shown that nearly half of all recommendations in medical specialty practice guidelines may be based on limited or inconclusive evidence. We sought to describe the proportion of clinical practice guideline recommendations in Emergency Medicine that are based upon expert opinion and low level evidence.MethodsSystematic review of clinical practice guidelines (Clinical Policies) published by the American College of Emergency Physicians from January 1990 to January 2016. Standardized data were abstracted from each Clinical Policy including the number and level of recommendations as well as the reported class of evidence. Primary outcomes were the proportion of Level C equivalent recommendations and Class III equivalent evidence. The primary analysis was limited to current Clinical Policies, while secondary analysis included all Clinical Policies.ResultsA total of 54 Clinical Policies including 421 recommendations and 2801 cited references, with an average of 7.8 recommendations and 52 references per guideline were included. Of 19 current Clinical Policies, 13 of 141 (9.2%) recommendations were Level A, 57 (40.4%) Level B, and 71 (50.4%) Level C. Of 845 references in current Clinical Policies, 67 (7.9%) were Class I, 272 (32.3%) Class II, and 506 (59.9%) Class III equivalent. Among all Clinical Policies, 200 (47.5%) recommendations were Level C equivalent, and 1371 (48.9%) of references were Class III equivalent.ConclusionsEmergency medicine clinical practice guidelines are largely based on lower classes of evidence and a majority of recommendations are expert opinion based. Emergency medicine appears to suffer from an evidence gap that should be prioritized in the national research agenda and considered by policymakers prior to developing future quality standards.

Project description:IntroductionAlzheimer's disease (AD) is a disease continuum from pathophysiologic, biomarker and clinical perspectives. With the advent of advanced technologies, diagnosing and managing patients is evolving.MethodsA systematic literature review (SLR) of practice guidelines for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and AD dementia was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). This systematic literature review (SLR) aimed to summarize current clinical practice guidelines for screening, testing, diagnosis, treatment and monitoring in the AD continuum. The results of this SLR were used to propose a way forward for practice guidelines given the possible introduction of biomarker-guided technology using blood- or plasma-based assays and disease-modifying treatments (DMTs) targeted for early disease.Results53 clinical practice guidelines were identified, 15 of which were published since 2018. Screening for asymptomatic populations was not recommended. Biomarker testing was not included in routine diagnostic practice. There was no consensus on which neurocognitive tests to use to diagnose and monitor MCI or AD dementia. Pharmacologic therapies were not recommended for MCI, while cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine were recommended for AD treatment.DiscussionThe pre-2018 and post-2018 practice guidelines share similar recommendations for screening, diagnosis and treatment. However, once DMTs are approved, clinicians will require guidance on the appropriate use of DMTs in a clinical setting. This guidance should include strategies for identifying eligible patients and evaluating the DMT benefit-to-risk profile to facilitate shared decision-making among physicians, patients and care partners.ConclusionRegular evidence-based updates of existing guidelines for the AD continuum are required over the coming decades to integrate rapidly evolving technologic and medical scientific advances and bring emerging approaches for management of early disease into clinical practice. This will pave the way toward biomarker-guided identification and targeted treatment and the realization of precision medicine for AD.

Project description:Despite the plethora of empirical studies conducted to date, debate continues about whether and to what extent results should be returned to participants of genomic research. We aimed to systematically review the empirical literature exploring stakeholders' perspectives on return of individual research results (IRR) from genomic research. We examined preferences for receiving or willingness to return IRR, and experiences with either receiving or returning them. The systematic searches were conducted across five major databases in August 2018 and repeated in April 2020, and included studies reporting findings from primary research regardless of method (quantitative, qualitative, mixed). Articles that related to the clinical setting were excluded. Our search identified 221 articles that met our search criteria. This included 118 quantitative, 69 qualitative and 34 mixed methods studies. These articles included a total number of 118,874 stakeholders with research participants (85,270/72%) and members of the general public (40,967/35%) being the largest groups represented. The articles spanned at least 22 different countries with most (144/65%) being from the USA. Most (76%) discussed clinical research projects, rather than biobanks. More than half (58%) gauged views that were hypothetical. We found overwhelming evidence of high interest in return of IRR from potential and actual genomic research participants. There is also a general willingness to provide such results by researchers and health professionals, although they tend to adopt a more cautious stance. While all results are desired to some degree, those that have the potential to change clinical management are generally prioritized by all stakeholders. Professional stakeholders appear more willing to return results that are reliable and clinically relevant than those that are less reliable and lack clinical relevance. The lack of evidence for significant enduring psychological harm and the clear benefits to some research participants suggest that researchers should be returning actionable IRRs to participants.