{"id":36550,"date":"2020-12-30T10:32:22","date_gmt":"2020-12-30T10:32:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/?p=36550"},"modified":"2021-01-11T07:39:40","modified_gmt":"2021-01-11T07:39:40","slug":"the-prevalence-of-mobile-phone-use-in-the-school-going-children-in-north-al-batinah-region-of-oman-a-cross-sectional-study","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/vol13no4\/the-prevalence-of-mobile-phone-use-in-the-school-going-children-in-north-al-batinah-region-of-oman-a-cross-sectional-study\/","title":{"rendered":"The Prevalence of Mobile Phone Use in The School Going Children in North Al Batinah Region of Oman: A Cross Sectional Study"},"content":{"rendered":"

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

The trend of having your own mobile phone and its increased use is surging even more rapidly in the college and school going children. It is worrisome as electromagnetic waves emitted from mobile phones have been found to cause many adverse health effects. A report publishedby International Central Institute for Youth and Educational Television (IZI) in 2019 revealed the prevalence of mobile phone ownership and usage among the school going students in Europe1<\/sup>. According to this report, in students of age ranges between 7-12 years (primary section students); phone ownership and usage was 88% in Sweden, 35% in UK and 22% France. In the older students of age ranges from 12-19 years (secondary section students);phone ownership and usage was 81% in France, 83% in UK, 95% in USA and 99% in Switzerland1<\/sup>.<\/p>\n

Children are more vulnerable to electromagnetic waves because their skull bones are thinner and they will be exposed for a longer duration until they become old. During fetal development and early childhood, there are embryonic and adult stem cells which are more sensitive to electromagnetic waves2, 3, 4<\/sup>.In 2011, Volkow et al conducted a study taking PET scan of the brain while the person was talking on mobile held up to the ear. High rates of glucose consumption were noticed by the part of the brain close to the mobile phone as compared to the rest of the brain5<\/sup>. This spike in brain activity due to electromagnetic waves from the cell phone may permanently alter brain function 6,7<\/sup>. Children\u2019s brain is still developing and many neurological connections are being form over time and this exposure may delete synaptic connections hence it\u2019s an area of great concern 5<\/sup>.<\/p>\n

An ipsilateral acoustic neuroma and glioma of the brain after 10-year use of mobile phone was also reported8<\/sup>. An increase in the incidence of childhood CNS tumors has been reported in United Kingdom, United States, Japan and Australia 3<\/sup>. Research from Sweden,Denmark,UK, Finland and Germany in 2009 suggested that if timely interventions were not taken,especially in children and teenagers, incidence of primary brain tumors will increase 8, 9<\/sup>.<\/p>\n

International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of WHO, has listed mobile phone into the same carcinogenic hazard classification as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform 10<\/sup>.\u00a0 Childhoodleukemiain childrenexposedtoelectromagneticfieldshasalreadyledtoitsinclusionasa \u201cpossiblehumancarcinogen\u201dbytheInternationalAgency for Research on Cancer 11, 12, 13<\/sup>.<\/p>\n

Mobile phone and internet addiction have been reported as community health problem in adolescents 14, 15<\/sup>.A study by Sohn et.al in 2019 also showed that using social media and watching TV were among the leading causes of problematic smartphone use (PSU)16,17<\/sup>.In this increasing trend of using mobile phones among school going children, we wanted to explore where children in Oman stand compared to the rest of the world. It will provide us an insight into how many of them is using mobile phones and for what activities are they using it the most.<\/p>\n

Hypothesis<\/strong><\/p>\n

The mobile phone ownership and prevalence of its use among the students of primary and secondary sections in schoolsof Omanhas increased rapidly.<\/p>\n

Objectives<\/strong><\/p>\n

To knowthe prevalence of mobile phone use by the school going students in North Al Batinah region of Oman.<\/p>\n

To knowthe percentage of children bringing their phones to school and using it during the school hours.<\/p>\n

To know how the school going students use their mobile devices during the day.<\/p>\n

To know if their parents are aware of their usage and if they intervene in any way to regulate its use.<\/p>\n

To know if they are using headphones or Bluetooth.<\/p>\n

Material and Methods<\/strong><\/p>\n

This study was approved by the IntuitionalResearch Board of College of Medicine and Health Sciences National University (formerly Oman Medical College) and the ethics committees of Ministry of Education and Ministry of Health in Oman. It is a cross-sectional type of studyutilizinga paper-based survey in schools located in North Al Batinah region in the city of Sohar. The participants were divided according to the Omani School system into Cycle 1 (Primary section, Grade 1-4) and Cycle 2 (Secondary section, Grade 5-10). 13 schools participated in this study in the city of Sohar. Omani public schools were Al Safaaschool, Um Salim school, Al Hikma school, Al Karama school, Al Hambar school, Ahmed Bin Saeed school, Sulaiman Bin Abad school and Sohar secondary school.\u00a0 Among the private schools four participated which were Pakistan schoolSohar, Indian schoolSohar, Bangladesh schoolSohar, Sohar International school and Al Batinah International School.<\/p>\n

The survey form was categorized in four sections: 1. Demographic data, 2. Mobile phone ownership data, 3. Mobile phone use during and after school hours, 4. Role of parents in keeping track of their children\u2019s mobile phone use.<\/p>\n

The PIand his team of volunteering medical students visited the above mentioned schools in the city of Sohar in North Al Batinah region.The project and its research objectives were explained to the principals, headmasters and other respective teachers. The questionnaire forms were then handed over to the principalwhich were sealed in envelops for different grades. The respective class teachers explained the objectives of this research to the students and made them understand how to fill the forms. Name was an optional field; however, other details were mandatory. The forms were filled during school hours, after filling the consent form and then collected and sealed in envelopes initially provided and these were then collected by PI on a later date. The data was entered into google survey forms, which were online counterparts of the paper-based survey. Any form which was incomplete was not included in the study and this allowed for easy data analysis.<\/p>\n

Results<\/strong><\/p>\n

Section 1: Demographic data<\/strong><\/p>\n

A total of 1985 students participated in this research and were grouped according to their section; 414 students participated from primary section or cycle 1 and 1438 participated from secondary section or cycle 2. 133 forms were incomplete and so they were removed from this study. The average age of primary section students (cycle 1) was 9.54 \u00b10.911 years and for secondary section students (cycle 2) was 14.04 \u00b1 2.16 years. The femalestudent population is higher in primary section by a slight margin of 9%, whereas more males dominated in secondary section (Fig.1a). Omani student population is higher in both the sections respectively (Fig.1a, b).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\"Figure<\/a><\/td>\nFigure 1: a) Gender distributionin primary and secondary sections.\u00a0<\/strong>B) Omani students are more in both primary and secondary sections.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Click here to View figure<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Section 2: Smartphone ownership and use:<\/strong><\/p>\n

86% of primary section students and 91% of secondary section students are using a smartphone actively (Fig 2a, b).Only 1% of primary section students and 5% of secondary section students bring their mobile phones to school because they are aware of the fact that the mobile devices are not allowed during school hours.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\"Figure<\/a><\/td>\nFigure 2: a)86% of primary section students are using mobile phones.\u00a0<\/strong>b)91% of secondary section students are using mobile phones.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Click here to View figure<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Section 3: Mobile phone use after school hours<\/strong><\/p>\n

Fig.3a and 3b show the use of the mobile phone after school hours. Primary section students were mostly playing games (87.4%) and watching videos (80.8%), while secondary students on the other hand used it mostly for accessing internet (88.8%) and taking pictures (87.8%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\"Figure<\/a><\/td>\nFigure 3: a)This graph shows the way how the mobile phone was used\u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0the primary section students. b)This graph shows the way how\u00a0<\/strong>the mobile phone was used the<\/sup> secondary section students.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Click here to View figure<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

11.5% of primary section students use their phones for calling formore than 2 hours\/24 hoursas compared to 54% of secondary section students (Table 1).When it comes to mobile phone use for downloading miscellaneous items, 23% of primary section students spend more than 2 hours\/24 hours as compared to 50% of the secondary students (Table 2).<\/p>\n

Table 1: Mobile phone talking time per day.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Mobile phone use while calling<\/strong><\/td>\nPrimary section<\/strong><\/td>\nSecondary section<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
< 1 hour<\/td>\n57.4%<\/td>\n22.5%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1-2 hours<\/td>\n31.1%<\/td>\n23.4%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
>2 hours<\/td>\n11.5%<\/td>\n53.9%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Table 2: Mobile phone downloading per day.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Mobile phone use while downloading<\/strong><\/td>\nPrimary section<\/strong><\/td>\nSecondary section<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
< 1 hour<\/td>\n24.6%<\/td>\n30.0%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1-2 hours<\/td>\n52.3%<\/td>\n19.8%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
>2 hours<\/td>\n23.1%<\/td>\n49.8%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

More than 36% of primary sections students reported using both headphones and Bluetooth everyday as compared to 54% of secondary section students.<\/p>\n

Section 4: Parent\u2019s Role<\/strong><\/p>\n

Next half of survey was focused on parent\u2019s role on knowing the contents on their children\u2019s mobile device and if the parents limit the use of mobile phone.86.7% of primary section students and 83.4% of secondary section students answered \u201cYes\u201d to the question that parents are aware of the contents on their cell phone.The questions asked about the role of parents were as follows: Q1:Do your parents know what you do on the mobile?Q2:Do your parents limit the number of minutes you may talk on the phone? Q3: Do your parents look at the content of your cell phone? Q4: Do your parents take away the cell phone as punishment? Q5: Do your parents take away the cell phone as punishment? Results from parent\u2019s centered questions are shown in Fig.4.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\"Figure<\/a><\/td>\nFigure \u00a04: Parents role in supervising their children\u2019s cell phone use in primary and secondary section students <\/strong><\/p>\n

Click here to View figure<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Discussion<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mobile phone ownership<\/strong><\/p>\n

An important finding in this study was an exponential increase of the smart phone ownership and use in school going students within the last five years. 91% of secondary section (grade 5-10) students owned a mobile phone in Omani schools in North Al Batinah region. In 2015, GSMA conducted studies in 4 countries (Bahrain, Philippines, Honduras and Japan) revealing that 66.7% of children used a mobile phone and out of them, Bahrain had the highest usage with 99% and Japan being the lowest with 57%18<\/sup>.<\/p>\n

A cross sectional study conducted in Japan by on 295 high school students aged 15-19 reported that 98.6% of students owned a smartphone19<\/sup>. In another survey done in 2018 by Tokyo board revealed that 97.3% of metropolitan high school students used smart phones(Japan news) 20<\/sup>. The differences in these studies compared to the GSMA can be attributed to the fact that GSMA studies combined both primary and secondary sections. The study conducted on high school children in Izmir, Turkey, reported 94% of the participants were using smart phones21<\/sup>.International data on youth and media (IZI) in 2019 revealed phone ownership at 81% in France, 83% in UK, 95% in USA and 99% in Switzerland1<\/sup>. Our results from this study for secondary section show that students in Oman are on par in smartphone usage with their International counterparts.<\/p>\n

In 2019, 86% of children owned a smart phoned in primary section in Oman, which is almost the same as in secondary section (91%). A Hungarian study conducted by Mezei, Benyi& Muller on 4th<\/sup> grade students (n=1389) 10-11-year old showed that 76% owned a mobile phone22<\/sup>.The report by IZI in 2019 showed that, in Sweden in 2018, the use of mobile phone sharply increased from 10% among 6 years old to 88% in 10 years old. The same report shows that 35% of children aged 7-12 years in UK own a smartphone and 22% in France1<\/sup>.This study in Oman revealed that primary section students in Oman had a higher percentage of mobile ownership than children from other countries. The average agerange when the childrenfirst owned a smart phone is 10 years as reported by GSMA in 2014 and 201523<\/sup>.<\/p>\n

Time spent on smart phones<\/strong><\/p>\n

Majority of the students were not taking their mobile phone to school, and those who were taking it were not using it during the school hours because they knew that mobile phone use is not allowed during school hours. However, many schools around the world allow students to not only bring their mobile devices but encourage the use of internet for academic purposes. This is known as Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) initiative practiced in European countries and Canada among others24<\/sup>. But recently mobile phone use by school going children has been found to be troublesome.\u00a0 Paris recently prohibited mobile phone in the schools stating that it is a big distractor during teaching25<\/sup>. Also, province of Ontario in 2019 banned students from using their smartphones in school without a supervising educator26<\/sup>. A city in Norway, Stavanger, has also introduced a mobile phone ban while also limiting smaller children\u2019s access to school computers27<\/sup>.Siao Hui Toh et al in his study on adolescents\u2019 pattern of cell phone use discussed how schools have implemented rules on use of mobile phones in schools 28<\/sup>.<\/p>\n

In government schools of Oman, mobile phones are not allowed while the private schools are not that strict on the matter. In 2009, Japan education ministry had banned elementary and junior high school students to bring the mobile phones to school, however, now the ministry has lifted the ban.<\/p>\n

Of the 418 primary section (Cycle 1) students, 61.9% used their cell phones to make calls compared to 84.6% of the Cycle 2 students. Comparing this to the Hungarian study, only 24% used their phones daily for phone calls22<\/sup>.But of course, the study in Hungary was done back in 2005 so how relevant it is today remains to be seen.<\/p>\n

In Oman, 11.5% of students in primary section used the mobile for calling for more than 2 hours per day;however, it increased to 53.9% for the secondary section students. In Japan also, 10.5% of students used their mobile phones for more than 5 hours per day which resulted in sleep deprivation and insomnia19<\/sup>.<\/p>\n

Mobile phone use of more than 2 hours per day specifically for social networking websites and online chats was associated with an increased risk of depression19<\/sup>. Motives for smartphone to gain peer acceptance was the most significant factor related to smartphone addiction 29<\/sup>.<\/p>\n

Durusoy et.al from Izmir reported that headache, fatigue and sleep disturbances in students were found to be increased by 1.90, 1.78 and 1.53 times respectively for the students using a mobile phone21<\/sup>.<\/p>\n

We also looked into how the smart phones were usedby children when they were outside the school. The secondary and primary section students fall behind the results from GSMA 2015 study which showed 90% of children using the camera app and 97% of children who owned a smartphone were accessing the internet18<\/sup>.Similar findings were seen by the report published by IZI in 2019 where internet access by school going students was99% in UK, 97% in Germany, 94% in Finland, 93% in Brazil and 88% in France1<\/sup>.The study in 2014 by GSMA had 88% of children watching videoson their smartphones which is comparable to our findings1<\/sup>.82% of Swiss children aged 12-19 years also watched videos on their smartphones 1<\/sup>. Typical problematic user is 10-14 years of age, studying at public school 30<\/sup> .<\/p>\n

Our study shows that only 33% students from primary section and 65.4% from secondary section students use their phones for social networking websites such as Facebook, Snapchatetc. On the other hand, GSMA study in 2014 showed89% access of social networking websites by the children which increased to 93% in the 201518, 23<\/sup>. 2018 data for12 to 19 years old Swiss children showed 88% accessingsocial media. In USA, among 0-8 years oldchildren, 73%watch video clips and 70% play games1<\/sup>. Whereas in Oman, 81% of primary section students watch videos and more than 87% play games. Lower self-esteem and loneliness leads to excessive smartphone use andsmartphone gaming were associated with addiction32, 33, 34<\/sup>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

We investigated where the students keep the mobile phone when they are inside or outside their home. Majority of the male students keep their mobile phones either in their trouser pocket or if wearing Omani dress, in the side pocket. It is reported that keeping the mobile phone in trouser pocket throughout life may cause erectile dysfunction and infertility due to low sperm count 35<\/sup>. Female students either keep it in their bag or in their hand. Carrying it in their bra has been linked to breast cancer development 36<\/sup>. When they are at home, majority of the male students keep theirphones on the side table or inside the cupboard. Majority of the female students keep theirphones with them on the bed or under the pillow when they sleep. Keeping the mobile under the pillow may expose the head and brain region to electromagnetic waves throughout night which may have adverse health effects. Many research papers have reported that female gender is more prone for excessive use and addiction30, 37, 38, 39<\/sup> .<\/p>\n

It is also recommended that wire headphones are the safest way to use a mobile for calls or listening to music. 36% of primary section students and 54% of the secondary section students in Oman reported using both wired headphones and Bluetooth devices which is fairly low.<\/p>\n

Parents\u2019 role <\/strong><\/p>\n

Excessive use of mobile phone byschool going children cannot be left unchecked. In this study we enquire the children if their parents were aware of their cell phone use and its contents. Results showed that 87% parents of primary and 83% parents of secondary school children are equally aware of the mobile phone use and its content. Our results fall in line with a study reported by Siao Hui Tohet al. on adolescents\u2019 pattern of cell phone use and how parents restrict the content accessed by their children28<\/sup>.<\/p>\n

Parent\u2019s attitude to children\u2019s upbringing plays an important role in their overuse of cell phone. If the parents are working and busy in their own schedule, then children will indulge more and more in exploring social media using mobile devices, which in turn will make them addicted to mobile phones and they will suffer from many new mobile related symptoms as discussed by Linda et al 23<\/sup>. Parental neglect was significantly associated with smartphone addiction39<\/sup>. Another study by Lee et al reported that parental restriction increased likelihood of addiction31<\/sup>. Those parents whose attitude was warm and permissive saw children self-limiting themselves to lesser use of cell phones40<\/sup>.<\/p>\n

2018 data from USA revealed that 72% parents believed that their children are distracted by their mobile device.\u00a0 The report from IZI in 2019 also looked at whether parentcheck what their childrenare doing on their smart phones with Jordan at 69%, India 38%, Lebanon 54%, South Africa 44% and Vietnam 37%1<\/sup>. 85% of Omani parents keep a check on what their children are doing on their phones which is higher than all the other countries. The parents in Oman are more concerned with their children because of their cultural values and upbringing.<\/p>\n

Now due to the COVID 19 pandemic and increase in online teaching, this trend of smartphone and other devices using WiFiwill further surge with the availability of 5G Wi-Fi services which will contribute negatively towards creating an unhealthy environment for our children and the society as a whole.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

One of the limitations of this study was the young age group of primary section students.Some of them were not able to fill the forms correctly as some of them were not sure of how much time they spent on mobile phone every day. This may have resulted in some discrepancies in results.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

Our results prove our hypothesis that children start using mobile phones at a much earlier age than expected and that the ownership and time spent on internet have both increased rapidly in the past few years throughout the world including Oman. There was almost no difference in the use of mobile phone among the primary and secondary section students in Oman. Although mobiles are not allowed in schools in Oman, there is an increased use of mobile phones by the young population outside the school which is comparable to the western world. Children are more sensitive to mobile phones adverse health effects hence parents should restrict the use of mobile phone by their children.<\/p>\n

Acknowledgement<\/strong><\/p>\n

I am thankful to Oman Medical College Ex-Vice Dean, Prof. Tom Heming and Vice Dean Admin Dr. Pasha for granting me an Internal Grant to conduct this research. I am also thankful to Dean Prof. Mohammed Al Shafaee for encouraging me to pursue research which is beneficial to Oman and Mr Said Al Kindi with whom I visited Omani schools for boys for distributing the forms and collecting the data. Deeply thankful to DrAli Moqbali, Ministry of Health for taking personally interest in the current research. I am also in debt to all the principal and head of the schools in North Al Batinah region that designated their teachers to carry out this survey from their pupils during school hours. I am also thankful to all the medical students who chipped in at different levels during this research projects. A very special thanks to Ms. Ahlam Al Balushi and Ms. Enas for translating the questionnaire form English to Arabic language, and for collecting the data from Omani schools for girls.<\/p>\n

Conflict of Interest<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is no conflict of interest of the author os any of the co-authors.<\/p>\n

Funding source<\/strong><\/p>\n

Internal grand of medical college\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Orde H, Durner D. International Data on Youth and Media<\/em>[Ebook]. International central institute for youth and educational television. (2019);\u00a0Retrieved from https:\/\/www.br-online.de\/jugend\/izi\/english\/International%20Data%20on%20Youth%20and%20Media.pdf<\/li>\n
  2. Siddiqi N,Al Nazwani N. Effects of Electromagnetic Field on the Development of Chick Embryo: An In Vivo Study.\u00a0Electromagnetic Fields and Waves<\/em>.London, United Kingdom: IntechOpen, Pp. 163-176(2019).
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  3. Kheifets L,RitiShimkhada. Childhood leukemia and EMF: Review of the epidemiologic evidence. Bioelectromagnetics,Suppl7: S51-9 (2005) doi: 10.1002\/bem.20139.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  4. Leitgeb N. Mobile phones: are children at higher risk? Wien Med Wochenschr.158: 36(2008) https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s10354-007-0447-1
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  5. Volkow ND, Tomasi D, Wang GJ, Vaska P, Fowler JS, Telang F, Alexoff D, Logan J, Wong C.Effects of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Signal Exposure on Brain Glucose Metabolism, JAMA,305: 808-813(2011).
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  6. Anush D, Anna N, Armenuhi H,Sinerik A, Age-dependent effect of static magnetic field on brain tissue hydration. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 33: 58-67 (2013).
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  7. Park A, Mobile treat? A study finds that cell-phone emissions can change brain activity. Time magazine,117 (9): 22(2011).<\/li>\n
  8. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson K. Epidemiological evidence for an association between use of wireless phone and tumor increase. Patho-physiology, 16: 113-122 (2009).
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  9. Khurana VG, Teo C,Kundi M, Hardell L, Carlberg M. Cell phones and brain tumors: A review including the long-term epidemiological data. Surgical Neurology,72 (3): 205-214(2009).
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  10. Kheifets L,\u00a0Michael R,\u00a0Rick S,Emilie VD. The sensitivity of children to electromagnetic fields. Pediatrics,\u00a0116:\u00a0303-313 (2005).
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  11. Kheifets L, John S, Sander G. Childhood leukemia, electric and magnetic fields and temporal trends.Bioelectromagnetics,27: 545-552(2006).
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  12. Kheifets, Oksuzyan S. Exposure assessment and other challenges in non-ionizing radiation studies of childhood leukaemia, Radiation Protection Dosimetry,132: 139-147 (2008).
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  13. Richard L, Tower and Logan GS. The Epidemiology of Childhood Leukemia with a Focus on Birth Weight and Diet. Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences, 44: 203-242 (2008).
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  14. Spada MM. An overview of problematic internet use. Addict Behav,39:3-6(2014).
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  15. Haug S, Castro RP, Kwon M, Filler A, Kowatsch T, Schaub MP. Smartphone use and smartphone addiction among young people in Switzerland. J Behav Addict,4: 299-307(2015).
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  16. Sohn S, Rees P, Wildridge B, Kalk N, Carter B. Prevalence of problematic smartphone usage and associated mental health outcomes amongst children and young people: a systematic review, meta-analysis and grade of the evidence.\u00a0BMC Psychiatry<\/em>, 19<\/em>:356 (2019) doi: 10.1186\/s12888-019-2350-x
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  17. Linda FG, Oswald DK, Anna F. Risk factors for problematic smartphone use in children and adolescent: a review of existing literature. Neuro-Psychiatrie,33:179-190(2019).
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  18. GSMA and NTT docomo. Children’s use of Mobile phones: An international Comparison. 2016;\u00a0Retrieved from https:\/\/www.gsma.com\/publicpolicy\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/GSMA_Report_Childrens-use-of-mobile-phones-An-international-comparison-2015.pdf<\/li>\n
  19. Tamura H, Nishida T, Tsuji A, Sakakibara H. Association between Excessive Use of Mobile Phone and Insomnia and Depression among Japanese Adolescents.\u00a0International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,14<\/em>: 701 (2017) doi: 10.3390\/ijerph14070701.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  20. The Japan times. Tokyo to allow students to bring smartphones to school, Jun 20, (2019) https:\/\/www.japantimes.co.jp<\/li>\n
  21. Durusoy R, Hassoy H, \u00d6zkurt A, Karababa A. Mobile phone use, school electromagnetic field levels and related symptoms: a cross-sectional survey among 2150 high school students in Izmir.\u00a0Environmental Health,\u00a016<\/em>:(2017) doi: 10.1186\/s12940-017-0257-x
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  22. Mezei G, Benyi M, Muller A. Mobile phone ownership and use among school children in three Hungarian cities.\u00a0 Bioelectromagnetics,\u00a028<\/em>: 309-315 (2007) doi: 10.1002\/bem.20270.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  23. GSMA and NTT docomo. Children’s use of Mobile phones: A special report 2014<\/em>. 2015; \u00a0Retrieved from https:\/\/www.gsma.com \/publicpolicy\/ wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/03\/GSMA_Childrens_use_of_mobile_phones_2014.pdf<\/li>\n
  24. What do we mean by BYOD? Retrieved 11 May 2020; from http:\/\/fcl.eun.org\/byod-meaning.<\/li>\n
  25. Alex L. The mobile phone ban in French schools, one year on. Would it work elsewhere? Forbes.(2019)https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/alexledsom\/2019\/08\/30\/the-mobile-phone-ban-in-french-schools-one-year-on-would-it-work-elsewhere\/#2233b08e5e70<\/li>\n
  26. Cellphone ban to take effect for students in Ontario classrooms by November 2019. Retrieved 6 May 2020, from https:\/\/globalnews.ca\/news\/5829793\/ontario-school-cellphone-ban\/<\/li>\n
  27. Norwegian city to introduce mobile phone ban in schools. 2019; Retrieved 6 May 2020, from https:\/\/www.thelocal.no\/20191128\/norwegian-city-to-apply-tight-limits-on-kids-use-of-devices-at-school<\/li>\n
  28. SiaoHT, Howie EK, Coenen P.\u00a0et al.<\/em>\u201cFrom the moment I wake up I will use it\u2026every day, very hour\u201d: a qualitative study on the patterns of adolescents\u2019 mobile touch screen device use from adolescent and parent perspectives.\u00a0BMC Pediatr, <\/em>19:\u00a030 (2019) https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12887-019-1399-5
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  29. Lee C, Lee SJ. Prevalence and predictors of smartphone addiction proneness among Korean adolescents. Child YouthServRev,77:10-7(2017).
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  30. Lopez-Fernandez O, Honrubia-Serrano ML, et al. Prevalence of problematic mobile phone use in British adolescents. CyberpsycholBehavSocNetw,17: 91-8 (2014).
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  31. Lee SJ, Lee G, Lee C. Smartphone addiction and application usage in Korean adolescents: Effects of mediation strategies. SocBehavPers,44: 1525-34 (2016).
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  32. LiuCH, LinSH, PanYC, LinYH. Smartphone gaming and frequent use pattern associated with smartphone addiction. Medicine (Baltimore),95(2016) e4068. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/MD.0000000000004068.
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  33. Jeong SH, Kim H, Yum JY, Hwang Y. What type of content are smartphone users addicted to? SNS vs. games. Comput Human Behav, 54:10-7 (2016).
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  34. G\u00fczeller CO, Cosguner T. Development of a problematic mobile phone use scales for Turkish adolescents. CyberpsycholBehavSocNetw, 15:205-11 (2012).
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  35. Al-Ali BM, Patzak J, Fischereder K, Pummer K, Shamioul R., Cell phone usage and erectile function. Cen Eur J Urol,66: 75-77(2013).
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  36. West JG, Kapoor NS, Liao S-Y, Chen JW, Bailey L, Nagourney RA. Multifocal breast cancer in young women with prolonged contact between their breasts and their cellular phones, Case Rep Med, (2013) Article ID\u00a0354682https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1155\/2013\/354682
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  37. Emirtekin E, Balta S, Sural L, Kircaburun K, Griffiths MD, Billieux J. The role of childhood emotional maltreatment and body image dissatisfaction in problematic smartphone useamongadolescents. PsychiatryRes, 271:634-9(2019).
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  38. Cocorada E, Maican CI, Cazan AM, Maican MA. Assessing the smartphone addiction risk and its associations with personality traits among adolescents. Child Youth Serv Rev, 93:345-54 (2018).
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  39. Kim R, Lee K, Choi Y. Mobile Phone Overuse among Elementary School Students in Korea.\u00a0Journal of Addictions Nursing,26<\/em>: 81-85 (2015) doi: 10.1097\/jan.0000000000000074..
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n
  40. Kwak JY, Kim JY, Yoon YW. Effect of parental neglect on smartphone addiction in adolescents in South Korea. Child Abuse Negl,77:75-84(2018).
    \n    CrossRef<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Introduction The trend of having your own mobile phone and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":14,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[80],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-36550","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-vol13no4"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36550","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/14"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=36550"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36550\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":36855,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36550\/revisions\/36855"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36550"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36550"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36550"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}