Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38259779›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2023

Glimpse on 21st century new phobias; a predictive model of nomophobia.

Ciprian Marius Ceobanu, Andrei Lucian Marian, Roxana Apostolache

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. 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. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

3 authors.

Ciprian Marius Ceobanu *Teacher Training Department, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, "Alexandru Ioan Cuza" University of Iasi, Iași, Romania.
Andrei Lucian Marian *Teacher Training Department, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, "Alexandru Ioan Cuza" University of Iasi, Iași, Romania.
Roxana Apostolache *Teacher Training Department, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, "Alexandru Ioan Cuza" University of Iasi, Iași, Romania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The main purpose of this study was to examine the explanatory power of a predictive model of nomophobia consisting of rumination, fear of missing out (FoMO), mindfulness and non-pathological compulsions. The research involved a cross-sectional design exploring the prevalence of nomophobia in a Romanian university students' cohort. The quantitative methodology was used to collect and analyse the data obtained from all the respondents. Researchers adapted and pretested the questionnaire NMP-Q, before distributing it to 194 university students. SPSS (V. 20) and Hayes's PROCESS tool were used to analyse the data. The findings demonstrated that the above-mentioned psychological variables have a direct and significant relationship with nomophobia. Specifically, within the multidimensional mechanism that explains nomophobia, fear of missing out (FoMO), non-pathological compulsions, and rumination, included in the predictive model in this order, played the most important role, as together cover 34% of nomophobia variance. Furthermore, the fear of missing out has the highest explanatory contribution to nomophobia. The current study gives a better understanding of the dynamics of nomophobia in young people by focusing on psychological factors that play an important role in this phenomenon.

Indexed as

MindfulnessPhobic DisordersAdolescentCross-Sectional StudiesEthnicityFearHumansfear of missing outmindfulnessnomophobianon-pathological compulsionsruminationtechno phobias

Identifiers

PMID38259779
PMCPMC10802701

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.