SES’s R. C. Patel Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, Shirpur, 425405, Dhule, Maharashtra, India
Background - The Indian subcontinent, a South Asian region with diverse cultural practices, linguistics varieties, religious beliefs, and geographical features, is home to India, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Maldives, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan. An internet usage has increased globally, particularly in emerging nations like India. Internet addiction, a serious problem, is linked to mental health issues like ADD/ADHD, depression, anxiety, and alcoholism. Factors contributing to internet addiction include unstructured time, unrestricted access, cutting-edge equipment use, parental restrictions, virtual emotional expressions, and maintaining confidentiality. Methodology - An analytical investigation was conducted on the Indian subcontinent, involving 150 publications and a sample size of 58633. Data included demographics, internet usage, sample type, age, gender, and IA prevalence, analysed using relevant analytical tools. Result and Discussion - A study comparing 150 articles from Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka found that these countries have had the highest mean prevalence of internet addiction. The study suggests combining psychotherapy and pharmacological interventions, a "reality approach" to control behaviour, and a system to provide consistent assistance and alert users to internet usage restrictions. Educational institutions should focus on detecting and intervening before the problem escalates.
Indian Subcontinent
The Indian subcontinent is a South Asian territory known for its many cultural traditions, linguistic variants, religious beliefs, and geographical qualities. This region is a subregion of Asia that includes the countries of India, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Nepal, the Maldives, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan. All of these countries, including Afghanistan, form the SAARC union. The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is South Asia's geographical union of states and regional intergovernmental organisation. India, one of the subcontinent's most populated countries, is well-known for its rich history, diverse cultural traditions, and multiple languages. New Delhi is the national capital of India. Pakistan is known for its diverse landscape, which includes mountains, plains, and a coastline, as well as its tangled history. Islamabad is Pakistan's capital city. Bangladesh is located to the east of India and is noted for its rivers, stunning landscapes, and a mix of urban and rural communities. Bangladesh's capital city is known as Dhaka. Nepal is a geographically isolated country situated mostly in the Himalayas. It is known for its breath-taking mountain beauty and many ethnic groups. Kathmandu is Nepal's major metropolis. Bhutan is a small country located in the eastern Himalayas and is landlocked. It is well-known for promoting Gross National Happiness as a measure of wealth. The capital city of Bhutan is known as Thimphu. Sri Lanka, an island nation to the south of India, is well-known not just for its beautiful beaches, but also for its rich history and diverse cultural influences. Colombo is Sri Lanka's major metropolis. The Maldives are a tropical archipelago in the Indian Ocean. They are noted for their coral reefs, white-sand beaches, and abundance of aquatic life. Male is the name of the capital of the Maldives. The Indian subcontinent has a long and complex history, moulded by numerous empires, religions, and cultures. The region is home to a sizable proportion of the world's population and is well-known for its cultural heritage, which includes Sikhism, Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism. Furthermore, the subcontinent is home to a vast diversity of habitats, beginning with the Himalayan Mountain range and reaching all the way to coastal regions and fertile plains. [1-4]
Internet and Internet addiction
Worldwide, and especially in emerging nations like India, internet usage has skyrocketed since the turn of the century. [5-7] The internet has spread to every facet of human existence, from social communication and education to healthcare, finance, administration, retail, and entertainment, despite its humble beginnings as a tool for the exchange of information and study. [6] The internet has become an integral part of our daily lives to the point where we can't fathom a world without it. The number of people using the internet has surpassed three billion. [8] While technological advancement has undoubtedly improved and simplified our lives, it has also brought about the consequences. [5] Abuse of the internet and compulsive web surfing are real problems. Internet addiction, pathological internet use, online addiction disorder, pathological internet use, and online reliance are some of the terms used to describe this kind of unhealthy internet behaviour. [5,8-11] Although the negative consequences of spending too much time online were known for some time, it wasn't until the mid-1990s that internet addiction was officially acknowledged as a mental illness. [10] Researchers have paid close attention to it since then, and it is now thought of as a subset of behavioural addictions. The DSM-5 does not yet recognise online addiction as a distinct mental illness, although it does list internet gaming disorder as a "condition for further study”. [6, 9-11] Addiction to the internet can cause a host of physical, mental, and social issues, such as reduced productivity at work and in the classroom, poor nutrition, headaches, eye strain, social isolation, and problems in relationships. [10,11] There is strong evidence linking internet addiction to a variety of mental health issues, including ADD/ADHD, depression, anxiety, and alcoholism. [6, 9, 10, 12] The prevalence of internet addiction has been found to vary widely from 0.03% to 97.64 % in various studies, with the exact percentage varying widely across populations, research methods, and diagnostic tools. Additionally, due to their unique psychosocial and contextual traits, younger people, and particularly college students, are at a higher risk of vulnerability, according to the research. [10] Factors to be responsible -
Several personal, familial, and social traits, in addition to internet-related variables, have been postulated as potential predictors or risk factors for internet addiction by researchers. [10] The appropriate classification of Internet addiction has been debated. Some investigators have linked Internet addiction to addictive disorders, grouping it alongside alcohol and drug use disorders. [13] Others have linked Internet addiction to obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)[10] or to the impulse control disorders (ICDs).[14-16] The many names given to this phenomenon recognize the various ways in which it has been regarded:
According to Young et al., [22] Internet addiction is a broad term covering a wide variety of behaviours and impulse control problems. The five subtypes of Internet addiction are as follows:
Several screening instruments have been developed to assess Internet addiction, although none have emerged as the ‘gold standard’. Viz. Brenner, Egger and Rauterberg, Morahan-Martin and Schumacher, Shaw and Black, Young, etc. [23]
METHODOLOGY
For the Indian subcontinent, an analytical investigation was conducted. The study contained a total of 150 study publications, with a sample size of 58633. To avoid reporting bias, each study article was ensured that it would be coded, and that the information provided would not be the same or duplicate. The information gathered included demographic data, internet usage information, sample type, sample size, mean age of participants, gender preponderance, and IA prevalence. Data was statistically analysed using relevant tools and Microsoft Excel.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Several personal, familial, and social traits, in addition to internet-related variables, have been postulated as potential predictors or risk factors for internet addiction by researchers. [10] Table No. 01 is of details of studies from total 150 articles included in this study from which Bangladesh (06), Bhutan (01), India (128), Nepal (07), Pakistan (06), and Shri Lanka (02). Figure No 01 shows the year of publication and number of studies.
Figure No 01 shows the year of publication and number of studies
Table No. 02 is of Details of studies included such as First author’s name (Surname/ Family name), Year of publication, Location of study sample, Sample type, sample size, prevalence in percentage, criteria used for determination of addiction or problematic use, and Gender preponderance. Table No. 02 is explaining diverse things amongst from which some are as follows. Our analysis, which takes gender differences into account, reveals that while Nepal has more women than men, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka have more men than women. However, Bhutan and India are demonstrating an equal impact of men and women. In this study, we observed that, when we broke down the mean prevalence by nation, Bangladesh (31.16%), Bhutan (34.44%), India (27.71%), Nepal (40.38%), Pakistan (36.07%), and Sri Lanka (40.38%) were the highest. Bangladesh (27.25 years), Bhutan (27.6 years), India (21.35 years), Nepal (18.96 years), Pakistan (21.51 years), and Sri Lanka (16.65 years) are the countries with the highest mean ages. Comparing the sample size and population of country is as follows - Bangladesh (1115 out of 169,532,362), Bhutan (721 out of 787,424), India (47424 out of 1,425,775,850), Nepal (2227 out of 30,896,590), Pakistan (2905 out of 241,490,000), and Shri Lanka (4586 out of 21,893,579). The following countries are compared based on sample size and population: Bangladesh (1115 out of 169,532,362), Bhutan (721 out of 787,424), India (47424 out of 1,425,775,850), Nepal (2227 out of 30,896,590), Pakistan (2905 out of 241,490,000), and Sri Lanka (4586 out of 21,893,579). The internet and/or smartphone addiction can be measured using a variety of factors, but there isn't a single, definitive test to detect it with. The phrase addiction or overuse is highly subjective and psychological in nature, making it difficult to define and shape from a single perspective. The following tests or measurements, which were selected for this study after being mentioned in several publications: Chen Internet Addiction Scale - CIAS (01), Internet Addiction Scale - IAS (01), Internet Addiction Test - IAT (30), Internet Gaming Screening Questionnaire - IGSQ (02), Mobile Phone Involvement Questionnaire - MPIQ (01), Nomophobia Questionnaire - NQ (01), Smartphone Addiction Scale–Short Version - SAS-SV (12), Southampton mindfulness questionnaire - SMQ (02), Smartphone Addiction Inventory - SPAI (01), Young’s Internet Addiction Test - YIAT (93), and self-prepared Questionnaire (06).
Table 01 – Details of studies included.
|
Authors |
Year |
Location |
Sample type |
sample size |
PRV (%) |
Criteria used |
Gender preponderance |
Ref |
|
Macro |
2004 |
India |
MED |
165 |
58.1 |
IAT |
Not Clear |
6 |
|
Dixit |
2010 |
India |
MED |
200 |
18.5 |
IAT |
Not Clear |
6 |
|
Neha |
2012 |
India |
MED |
212 |
58 |
IAT |
Not Clear |
6 |
|
Aggarwal |
2013 |
India |
MED |
192 |
23.9 |
SQ |
Not Clear |
6 |
|
Jain |
2013 |
India |
MED |
200 |
69.5 |
IAT |
Not Clear |
6 |
|
Subba., |
2013 |
India |
MED |
335 |
78.8 |
IAT |
Not Clear |
6 |
|
Srijampana |
2014 |
Andhra Pradesh |
MED |
211 |
0.4 |
YIAT |
F > M |
24 |
|
Karim |
2014 |
Bangladesh |
UGS |
177 |
36 |
IAT |
Not Clear |
24 |
|
Malviya |
2014 |
Madhya Pradesh |
MED |
242 |
9.5 |
YIAT |
M > F |
24 |
|
Sharma |
2014 |
Madhya Pradesh |
UGS |
391 |
0.3 |
YIAT |
M > F |
24 |
|
Sulania |
2015 |
Delhi |
MED |
202 |
15.4 |
YIAT |
M > F |
24 |
|
Chaudhari |
2015 |
India |
MED |
300 |
52.5 |
YIAT |
F > M |
24 |
|
Krishnamurthy |
2015 |
Karnataka |
UGS |
515 |
8.9 |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
24 |
|
Bhatt |
2015 |
Kashmir |
UGS |
130 |
30 |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
24 |
|
Kawa |
2015 |
Kashmir |
UGS |
100 |
4 |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
24 |
|
Chaudhari |
2015 |
Maharashtra |
MED |
282 |
7.4 |
YIAT |
M > F |
24 |
|
Nath |
2016 |
Assam |
MED |
188 |
0.50% |
YIAT |
M > F |
24 |
|
Islam |
2016 |
Bangladesh |
UGS |
573 |
24 |
IAT |
Not Clear |
24 |
|
Uddin |
2016 |
Bangladesh |
UGS |
475 |
38.3 |
IAT |
Not Clear |
24 |
|
Nagori |
2016 |
Gujrat |
MED |
525 |
0.90% |
YIAT |
M > F |
24 |
|
Sharma |
2016 |
India |
SCH |
1386 |
26.96 |
NQ |
M > F |
24 |
|
Prabhakaran |
2016 |
India |
UNCL |
724 |
8.7 |
IAT |
Not Clear |
24 |
|
Bhat |
2016 |
Karnataka |
UGS |
1763 |
0.80% |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
24 |
|
Gedam |
2016 |
Maharashtra |
MED |
390 |
2.30% |
YIAT |
M > F |
24 |
|
kshatri |
2016 |
Odisha |
MED |
506 |
0.60% |
YIAT |
M > F |
24 |
|
Subhaprada |
2017 |
Andhra Pradesh |
MED |
95 |
24.2 |
YIAT |
M > F |
24 |
|
Afrin |
2017 |
Bangladesh |
SCH |
279 |
67.4 |
IGSQ |
Not Clear |
24 |
|
Prakash |
2017 |
India |
MDS |
169 |
13 |
SQ |
F > M |
24 |
|
Patel AV |
2017 |
India |
UGS |
200 |
32 |
SAS-SV |
Not Clear |
24 |
|
Mutalik |
2017 |
Karnataka |
MED |
934 |
0.60% |
YIAT |
M > F |
24 |
|
Kumar |
2017 |
Madhya Pradesh |
MED |
349 |
6 |
YIAT |
F > M |
24 |
|
Gedam |
2017 |
Maharashtra |
MED |
846 |
0.40% |
YIAT |
M > F |
24 |
|
Pati |
2017 |
Maharashtra |
MED |
488 |
3.70% |
YIAT |
M > F |
24 |
|
Bhandari |
2017 |
Nepal |
UNCL |
937 |
35.4 |
IAT |
Not Clear |
24 |
|
Niranjjan |
2017 |
Pondicherry |
MED |
200 |
16.5 |
YIAT |
M > F |
24 |
|
Priya |
2017 |
Uttar Pradesh |
MED |
5.80% |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
24 |
|
|
Gupta |
2018 |
Delhi |
UGS |
380 |
25.3 |
YIAT |
M > F |
24 |
|
Patel |
2018 |
Gujarat |
MED |
139 |
16.6 |
YIAT |
M > F |
24 |
|
Damor |
2018 |
Gujrat |
MED |
313 |
0.30% |
YIAT |
M > F |
24 |
|
Ammati |
2018 |
India |
MED |
328 |
36.8 |
SMQ |
M > F |
24 |
|
Mangot AG |
2018 |
India |
MED |
93 |
41 |
SAS-SV |
Not Clear |
24 |
|
Nida N |
2018 |
India |
MED |
236 |
34.4 |
SAS-SV |
Not Clear |
24 |
|
Prasad S |
2018 |
India |
MED |
140 |
36 |
SAS-SV |
Not Clear |
24 |
|
Shankar V |
2018 |
India |
STD |
193 |
40.93 |
MPIQ |
M > F |
24 |
|
Chaudhari P |
2018 |
India |
UGS |
222 |
70 |
IAS |
Not Clear |
24 |
|
Nayak JK |
2018 |
India |
UGS |
429 |
45 |
IAT |
F > M |
24 |
|
Anand |
2018 |
Karnataka |
UGS |
2776 |
0.5 |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
24 |
|
Anand |
2018 |
Karnataka |
UGS |
1086 |
0.4 |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
24 |
|
Sharma |
2018 |
Karnataka |
UGS |
1304 |
0.5 |
YIAT |
M > F |
24 |
|
Suresh |
2018 |
Karnataka |
MED |
150 |
0.60% |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
24 |
|
Anand |
2018 |
Karnataka & Kerala |
MED |
1763 |
0.8 |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
24 |
|
Thakur |
2018 |
Madhya Pradesh |
UGS |
425 |
1.3 |
YIAT |
M > F |
24 |
|
Singh |
2018 |
Punjab |
MED |
122 |
19.7 |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
24 |
|
Kumar |
2018 |
West Bengal |
UGS |
200 |
39.50% |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
24 |
|
Tenzin |
2019 |
Bhutan |
ADS |
721 |
34.44 |
IAT |
F = M |
24 |
|
Bhatt |
2019 |
Himachal Pradesh |
MED |
320 |
23.4 |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
25 |
|
Abilash |
2019 |
India |
UGS |
300 |
49 |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
25 |
|
Grover |
2019 |
India |
MDS |
376 |
8.24 |
IAT |
M > F |
25 |
|
Dharmadhikari |
2019 |
India |
MED |
195 |
46.15 |
SAS-SV |
Not Clear |
25 |
|
Nagori |
2019 |
India |
MED |
525 |
9.3 |
IAT |
M > F |
8 |
|
Daniel |
2019 |
India |
MED |
81 |
12.6 |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
26 |
|
Kamate |
2019 |
India |
UGS |
500 |
61 |
SQ |
Not Clear |
27 |
|
Kandasamy |
2019 |
India |
UGS |
200 |
26 |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
28 |
|
Jain P |
2019 |
India |
MED |
146 |
24.65 |
SAS-SV |
Not Clear |
28 |
|
Kannan |
2019 |
India |
MED |
201 |
17.4 |
IAT |
Not Clear |
28 |
|
Kumar VA |
2019 |
India |
MED |
150 |
44.7 |
SAS-SV |
F = M |
29 |
|
Padmanabha |
2019 |
India |
MED |
115 |
63.48 |
IAT |
M > F |
6 |
|
Patel |
2019 |
India |
MED |
172 |
5.73 |
IAT |
M > F |
24 |
|
Sancheti |
2019 |
India |
UGS |
360 |
2.56 |
IAT |
F > M |
7 |
|
Andrusha |
2019 |
India |
MED |
27 |
51.9 |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
9 |
|
Asokan |
2019 |
India |
MED |
381 |
61.4 |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
6 |
|
Bagdey |
2019 |
India |
UGS |
400 |
26.86 |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
11 |
|
chaudhari |
2019 |
India |
UGS |
201 |
73.7 |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
24 |
|
Ghanate |
2019 |
India |
UGS |
700 |
19.1 |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
5 |
|
Kulkarni |
2019 |
India |
ADS |
469 |
29.63 |
SQ |
M > F |
6 |
|
Kumar |
2019 |
India |
STD |
426 |
31.69 |
YIAT |
M > F |
30 |
|
Kunnathoor |
2019 |
India |
STD |
278 |
17 |
SQ |
M > F |
31 |
|
Mavatkar |
2019 |
India |
MED |
138 |
36.23 |
IAT |
F > M |
32 |
|
Mohandas |
2019 |
India |
UGS |
390 |
18.4 |
IAT |
F > M |
33 |
|
Renuka |
2019 |
India |
GNP |
214 |
27.6 |
SAS-SV |
M > F |
34 |
|
Javaeed |
2019 |
Jammu Kashmir |
MED |
210 |
52.4 |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
35 |
|
Javaeed |
2019 |
Jammu Kashmir |
MED |
316 |
87.1 |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
10 |
|
Ghanate |
2019 |
Karnataka |
MED |
700 |
1.7 |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
36 |
|
Veena |
2019 |
Karnataka |
UGS |
455 |
0.7 |
YIAT |
M > F |
12 |
|
Asokan |
2019 |
Kerala |
MED |
381 |
0.5 |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
37 |
|
Kishore |
2019 |
Kolkata |
MED |
147 |
2.7 |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
38 |
|
Kannan |
2019 |
Puducherry |
MED |
201 |
97.4 |
YIAT |
M > F |
39 |
|
Hassan |
2020 |
Bangladesh |
UNS |
545 |
27.1 |
IAT |
Not Clear |
40 |
|
Nathawat |
2020 |
Goa |
UGS |
200 |
15 |
YIAT |
F = M |
41 |
|
Kandre |
2020 |
Gujarat |
MED |
247 |
0.9 |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
42 |
|
Sai |
2020 |
India |
MED |
233 |
37.06 |
YIAT |
F > M |
43 |
|
Abhinaya |
2020 |
India |
MED |
172 |
54.6 |
YIAT |
F > M |
44 |
|
Gupta |
2020 |
India |
UGS |
205 |
23 |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
45 |
|
Awasthi |
2020 |
India |
MED |
221 |
5.9 |
YIAT |
F > M |
46 |
|
Jain |
2020 |
India |
MED |
466 |
31.96 |
YIAT |
M > F |
47 |
|
Kaur |
2020 |
India |
MED |
250 |
1.2 |
YIAT |
M > F |
48 |
|
Sharma., et al |
2020 |
India |
CDS |
2 |
0 |
SQ |
Not Clear |
49 |
|
Chattopadhyay |
2020 |
India |
MED |
200 |
52 |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
50 |
|
Singh |
2020 |
India |
UGS |
297 |
62.28 |
SMQ |
M > F |
51 |
|
Agrawal |
2020 |
India |
ADS |
450 |
46.77 |
YIAT |
M > F |
52 |
|
Basu |
2020 |
India |
MED |
424 |
37 |
IGSQ |
M > F |
53 |
|
BHNADARI |
2020 |
India |
ADS |
267 |
44.2 |
IAT |
M > F |
54 |
|
Kandre |
2020 |
India |
MED |
427 |
15.09 |
YIAT |
M > F |
55 |
|
Oswal |
2020 |
India |
MED |
523 |
22.2 |
SPAI |
F = M |
56 |
|
Prakash |
2020 |
India |
GNP |
350 |
20 |
IAT |
Not Clear |
57 |
|
Pathak |
2020 |
Karnataka |
MED |
150 |
4 |
YIAT |
M > F |
58 |
|
Parvathy |
2020 |
Kerala |
MED |
368 |
22.8 |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
59 |
|
Mukherjee |
2020 |
Kolkata |
MED |
150 |
19.3 |
YIAT |
M > F |
60 |
|
Murarkar |
2020 |
Maharashtra |
MED |
303 |
0.3 |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
60 |
|
Sohail |
2020 |
Pakistan |
MED |
87 |
43 |
IAT |
F > M |
61 |
|
Jain |
2020 |
Rajasthan |
UGS |
957 |
15.5 |
YIAT |
M > F |
62 |
|
Jaiswal |
2020 |
Rajasthan |
MED |
307 |
3.3 |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
63 |
|
Gayathri |
2020 |
Tamil Nadu |
MED |
300 |
2.3 |
YIAT |
M > F |
64 |
|
Aqeel |
2020 |
Uttar Pradesh |
MED |
488 |
0.8 |
YIAT |
M > F |
65 |
|
Srivastava |
2020 |
Uttar Pradesh |
UGS |
133 |
0.7 |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
66 |
|
Awasthi |
2020 |
Uttarakhand |
MED |
221 |
5.9 |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
67 |
|
Dhamnetiya |
2021 |
India |
MED |
201 |
41.2 |
YIAT |
M > F |
68 |
|
Raveendran |
2021 |
India |
ADS |
227 |
59 |
YIAT |
M > F |
69 |
|
Mariavinifa |
2021 |
India |
UGS |
500 |
24.2 |
YIAT |
F > M |
70 |
|
Razik |
2021 |
India |
UGS |
497 |
18.7 |
YIAT |
F > M |
71 |
|
Mengistu |
2021 |
India |
UGS |
18.88 |
IAT |
Not Clear |
72 |
|
|
Salunkhe |
2021 |
India |
ADS |
200 |
67.5 |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
73 |
|
Yamuna |
2021 |
India |
ADL |
50 |
18 |
YIAT |
F = M |
74 |
|
Patil |
2021 |
India |
SCH |
50 |
52 |
IAT |
Not Clear |
75 |
|
Kumar |
2021 |
India |
UGS |
235 |
4..68 |
YIAT |
M > F |
76 |
|
Sebastian |
2021 |
India |
MED |
487 |
67.6 |
SAS-SV |
F > M |
77 |
|
Singh H |
2021 |
India |
ADS |
479 |
22.31 |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
78 |
|
Chatterjee |
2021 |
India |
MED |
224 |
40 |
SAS-SV |
M > F |
79 |
|
Gupta |
2021 |
India |
MED |
77 |
77 |
SAS-SV |
F > M |
80 |
|
Nayak A |
2021 |
India |
MED |
148 |
87.16 |
IAT |
Not Clear |
81 |
|
Pal |
2021 |
India |
MED |
280 |
58.57 |
YIAT |
M > F |
82 |
|
MengistuNE |
2021 |
Nepal |
UGS |
220 |
42 |
IAT |
Not Clear |
83 |
|
Singh S |
2021 |
Nepal |
SCH |
144 |
50.65 |
YIAT |
M > F |
84 |
|
Singh B |
2021 |
Nepal |
MED |
506 |
39.33 |
YIAT |
F > M |
85 |
|
Lakhdir |
2021 |
Pakistan |
GNP |
1145 |
38.8 |
YIAT |
F > M |
86 |
|
Memon |
2021 |
Pakistan |
MED |
263 |
85.17 |
YIAT |
M > F |
88 |
|
MengistuPK |
2021 |
Pakistan |
UGS |
125 |
16.7 |
IAT |
Not Clear |
87 |
|
Naseem |
2021 |
Pakistan |
MED |
345 |
34 |
YIAT |
F = M |
88 |
|
Gunathillaka |
2021 |
Shri Lanka |
SCH |
2800 |
8 |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
89 |
|
Chowdhury |
2022 |
Bangladesh |
ADL |
315 |
39.7 |
YIAT |
Not Clear |
90 |
|
Chauhan |
2022 |
India |
MED |
250 |
51.6 |
YIAT |
M > F |
91 |
|
Ghogare |
2022 |
India |
GNP |
412 |
45.1 |
SAS-SV |
Not Clear |
92 |
|
Patel |
2022 |
India |
SCH |
384 |
32.5 |
YIAT |
M > F |
93 |
|
Dawadi |
2022 |
Nepal |
MED |
229 |
25.62 |
YIAT |
M > F |
94 |
|
Din |
2022 |
Pakistan |
UGS |
440 |
30 |
CIAS |
M > F |
95 |
|
Ariyadasa |
2022 |
Shri Lanka |
ADS |
1351 |
17.2 |
IAT |
M > F |
96 |
|
Goel |
2023 |
India |
UGS |
987 |
25.5 |
YIAT |
F > M |
97 |
|
Shahi |
2023 |
India |
MED |
200 |
28 |
YIAT |
M > F |
98 |
|
Acharya |
2023 |
Nepal |
UGS |
344 |
29.9 |
YIAT |
F > M |
99 |
Abbreviations used – Sample Type - ADL = Adult, ADS = Adolescents, CDS = Case study, GNP = General population/ random sampling, MDS = Faculties of health sciences and Medical education, MED = Medical students, SCH = Secondary / high school students, STD = Students, UGS = under graduates, UNCL = Unclear, and UNS = unspecified. Criteria Used - CIAS = Chen Internet Addiction Scale, IAS = Internet Addiction Scale, IAT = Internet Addiction Test, IGSQ = Internet Gaming Screening Questionnaire, MPIQ = Mobile Phone Involvement Questionnaire, NQ = Nomophobia Questionnaire, SAS-SV = Smartphone Addiction Scale–Short Version, SMQ = Southampton mindfulness questionnaire, SPAI = Smartphone Addiction Inventory, YIAT = Young’s Internet Addiction Test, and SQ = self-prepared Questionnaire. Gender – M = Male, F = Female.
Table 02 – Country wise demonstration of sample size and prevalence.
|
Country |
Sample size |
Mean Prevalence % |
Age (Average) |
Gender preponderance |
|
Bhutan |
721 |
34.44 |
27.6 |
F = M |
|
Bangladesh |
1115 |
31.16 |
27.25 |
M > F |
|
Nepal |
2227 |
40.38 |
18.96 |
F > M |
|
Pakistan |
2905 |
36.07 |
21.51 |
M > F |
|
Shri Lanka |
4586 |
40.38 |
16.65 |
M > F |
|
India |
47424 |
27.71 |
21.35 |
F = M |
|
Total/ Mean |
58978 |
34.77 |
22.22 |
M > F |
A significant amount of progress is being made in the field of smartphone technology, and the number of individuals who use these devices is continuously increasing. Over the course of the last decade, the addiction to cell phones has been acknowledged as a type of behavioural addiction known as smartphone addiction. [36] The most recent revelation is that addiction to smart phones and/or the internet is a widespread phenomenon that can be found throughout all sectors of civilization. However, the number of people who are addicted to these technologies varies from one sector to another. Out of 150 research included in this study most of studies have been done on Medical students and Faculties of health sciences and Medical education 82 (54.66 %), then higher number of under graduates 41 (27.33 %). Other studies are Adult 02 (1.33%), Adolescents 08 (05.33 %), Case study 01 (0.67 %), General population/ random sampling 04 (2.67 %), Secondary / high school students / Students 09 (06 %), and Unclear/ unspecified 03 (02 %). The average prevalence of Medical students and Faculties of health sciences and Medical education is 27.23%, but higher found in Adult studies which is 57.7 %. There is a possibility that a combination of psychotherapy and specific pharmacological therapies could play a significant role in the decrease of the addiction that was mentioned earlier. In addition, it is strongly recommended to follow what is known as "the approach to reality," which entails requesting that the patient focus on his or her own actions and use motivational interviewing techniques. Keeping a person's score under control can be accomplished by encouraging them to take part in activities such as meditation and activities that take place outside. The topic of how to prevent it is a very difficult one to answer; one alternative is to design a system that gives users with regular help and informs them if they exceed the restriction. This is one of the possibilities. [11] It is probable that the free and uninterrupted availability of Internet facilities throughout the campus is the reason why everything on campus has a smartphone and why there has been a growth in the number of students using smartphones. [31]
CONCLUSION
According to the most recent data, the number of people who are addicted to the internet is growing at an alarming rate, which is a significant issue that requires immediate attention and resolution. The higher percent of Indians, older than eighteen years, are addicted to their smart phones. It is of greater importance to educational and research-based organisations to identify individuals who are addicted to the internet. It is therefore necessary for college administrators and parents alike to pay a greater amount of attention to identify students who are at danger and to act before the situation becomes out of control. There is a pressing need to emphasise the significance of instructing children on how to use the internet in a manner that is both healthy and secure.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors are thankful to Principal, R.C. Patel Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research Shirpur, Dist. Dhule (MS) India- 425 405 for providing necessary library facilities.
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Ethics Approval Statements That Refer to Your Institution
Not Applicable.
REFERENCE
Dr. Pankaj Jain*, Sughosh Upasani, Youth at Risk: Exploring Internet Addiction and Its Impact on South Asia’s Emerging Generation, Int. J. Sci. R. Tech., 2025, 2 (12), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18118505
10.5281/zenodo.18118505