Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35308651›Full record

ArticleNordisk alkohol- & narkotikatidskrift : NAT2020

Problematic internet use: A scoping review - longitudinal research on a contemporary social problem, 2006-2017.

Daniel Dahl, Karin Helmersson Bergmark

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Nordisk alkohol- & narkotikatidskrift : NAT, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Mental health work cannot be postponed.Nordisk alkohol- & narkotikatidskrift : NAT · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Daniel DahlStockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Karin Helmersson BergmarkStockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0976-857X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and aims: Problematic internet use (PIU), and kindred concepts such as internet addiction (IA), make up a growing research field, partly due to the suggested inclusion of internet gaming disorder in a future DSM-6 as well as the fact that gaming disorder is on its way to being included in the ICD-11. Conclusions from research are far from unified. This study aims to synthesise the research field of problematic internet use/internet addiction/gaming disorder, with a focus on the reporting of prevalence and change. Methods: Longitudinal studies of PIU/IA formed the basis for a scoping review. Systematic searches of Web of Science, Scopus and Proquest, for peer-reviewed and published articles based on empirical data collected at a minimum of two time points for studies, and with an end point set at 2017, led to the inclusion of 97 studies. Endnote X7 was used to organise the results and NVivo 11 was used for synthesising the results. Results: Analyses focused on prevalence and change. Findings show variation among measures and prevalence as well as in reported outcomes relating to social life and other problems. Most studies reported relations between PIU/IA and other problems in life, but no specific time order could be established. Furthermore, many studies did not present data on prevalence or change even though using a longitudinal survey design. Discussion and conclusions: In summary, the research field is plagued by a lack of consensus and common understanding, regarding both measures, perceptions of the problem, and findings.

Indexed as

internet addictionlongitudinalproblematic internet usereviewscoping

Identifiers

PMID35308651
PMCPMC8899278

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.