This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Reviews in Digital Mental Health (289) Mental Health Issues in Adolescence (637) Problematic Internet Use, Online Gambling and Game Addiction (190) Digital Health Reporting Standards, Quality and Transparency in e-Research (132)

Published on in Vol 12 (2025)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/66950, first published .
Factors Associated With Digital Addiction: Umbrella Review

Factors Associated With Digital Addiction: Umbrella Review

Factors Associated With Digital Addiction: Umbrella Review

Authors of this article:

Yun Han1 Author Orcid Image ;   Jiamin Qiu2 Author Orcid Image ;   Chengbin Shi2 Author Orcid Image ;   Shiqi Huang2 Author Orcid Image ;   Haokun Huang2 Author Orcid Image ;   Xinman Wang3 Author Orcid Image ;   Sui Zhu2 Author Orcid Image ;   Da-lin Lu2 Author Orcid Image ;   Peng Lu3 Author Orcid Image ;   Fangfang Zeng2 Author Orcid Image
Article Authors Cited by Tweetations (2) Metrics

    1School of Marxism, Huaqiao University, Xiamen, China

    2Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, Jinan University, No. 601, Huangpu Avenue West, Tianhe District, Guangzhou, China

    3Chinese Language and Culture College, Huaqiao University, Xiamen, China

    *these authors contributed equally

    Corresponding Author:

    Fangfang Zeng, MD


    Background: Digital addiction, affecting a significant portion of the population, particularly young people, is linked to psychological issues and social problems, making its prevention and management a crucial public health issue.

    Objective: This umbrella review aimed to comprehensively analyze the factors influencing digital addiction by re-evaluating the methodologies and evidence quality of existing meta-analyses.

    Methods: Databases including PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Embase were systematically searched for reviews and meta-analyses related to factors associated with digital addiction up to September 24, 2024. The methodological quality of the identified studies was assessed using the modified “A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2” (AMSTAR 2) tool, while the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool was used to evaluate the quality of the evidence presented in the literature.

    Results: A total of 18 articles were included in the review, with AMSTAR 2 assessments revealing 6 moderate-quality, 4 low-quality, and 8 very low-quality studies. In total, 29 significant factors associated with digital addiction were identified. Notably, 4 studies achieved both moderate AMSTAR 2 and GRADE ratings, indicating that positive parent-child relationship (r=−0.15, 95% CI−0.18 to −0.11; P<.05) effectively mitigate the risks of digital addiction. Conversely, urban residence (odds ratio [OR] 2.32, 95% CI 1.19-4.53; P<.001), adverse childhood experiences (r=0.21, 95% CI 0.18-0.24; P<.001), and social anxiety (r=0.34, 95% CI 0.19-0.48; P<.001) were identified as factors that may increase the risk of developing digital addiction.

    Conclusions: This study found that social factors such as urban residence were associated with an increased risk of digital addiction, whereas social support served as a protective factor against this risk. Nonetheless, the methodologies used in analyzing the factors related to digital addiction require further refinement.

    Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42024594911; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024594911

    JMIR Ment Health 2025;12:e66950

    doi:10.2196/66950

    Keywords

    digital addiction; influencing factor; umbrella review; meta-analysis; youth; adolescents; teenager; urban; AMSTAR 2; GRADE; adverse childhood experiences; social anxiety; psychological; psychology; social problem; social support; methodologies; public health; digital health; mental health 


    Digital addiction is characterized by a detrimental dependence on digital media and high-tech devices, including social networking, smartphone, and internet addictions [1,2]. Although digital addiction is not officially classified as a diagnosable disorder, some psychologists argue that it bears similarities to substance use disorders [3]. It is estimated that smartphone addiction affected 26.99% of individuals, social media addiction 17.42%, and internet addiction 14.22%, with notably higher rates among young people [2,4]. A cross-sectional study involving 31,659 university students from 2015 to 2018 revealed prevalence rates of 37.93% (12,009/31,659) for mild, 6.33% (2003/31,659) for moderate, and 0.20% (63/31,659) for severe internet addiction [5]. Digital addiction contributes to psychological issues, including attention deficits, depression, and anxiety, while also exacerbating social isolation, sleep disorders, and diminishing academic and occupational performance [6]. Consequently, the effective prevention and management of digital addiction has emerged as a critical public health concern [7].

    Studies have sought to identify modifiable risk and protective factors associated with digital addiction, categorizing them into three main domains, namely individual, digital media, and environment [7-11]. The emphasis has primarily been on individual and social determinants, which encompass intrapersonal and interpersonal factors, including gender differences, psychological traits, and health behaviors, as well as broader social influences. Despite the existence of numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses addressing factors linked to digital addiction, these investigations often focus on specific individual factors without providing updated, comprehensive insights. It is notable that 1 study identified 34 modifiable factors such as intrapersonal factors (eg, time spent playing and psychological conditioning), interpersonal factors, and social factors and concluded that intrapersonal factors were more likely to have a greater impact on internet gaming disorder [8]. However, this study’s focus on internet gaming disorder represents only 1 facet of the broader spectrum of digital addiction.

    Umbrella review is an emerging evidence synthesis method that evaluates multiple meta-analyses on related topics to derive more comprehensive conclusions. Unlike traditional meta-analyses, umbrella reviews assess the methodological quality and risk of bias across various studies, enhancing the ability to detect inconsistencies and differences in findings [12]. This approach offers a broader understanding of the credibility and robustness of the evidence, helping to identify potential heterogeneity and diversity among studies.

    This study aimed to further promote the integration of different research findings by conducting a comprehensive analysis of existing influences on digital addiction through umbrella analyses, while also evaluating the methodology and quality of existing meta-analyses and systematic reviews.


    Study Design

    This umbrella review was conducted in accordance with the registered protocol (Open Science Framework Registry) and the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 statement [13]. Our study protocol has been registered with PROSPERO (registration number CRD42024594911).

    Literature Search Strategy

    This study followed the umbrella review process established by Aromataris et al [12], searched databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Embase, and selected systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the influencing factors of digital addiction included in the databases up to September 24, 2024. The keywords used included digital addiction, digital overuse, internet addiction, internet-based addiction, problematic internet use, gaming disorder, social media addiction, influencing factors, risk factors, causative factors, contributing factors, meta-analysis, and systematic review, etc, and the search was conducted using a combination of subject words and free words. Taking the PubMed database as an example, the search strategy was shown in Multimedia Appendix 1. We also hand-searched the references of eligible included studies and google scholar to identify further relevant articles.

    Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

    We included studies on the influencing factors of digital addiction if they met the following inclusion criteria: (1) study type was systematic reviews and meta-analyses; (2) studies that focused on the various determinants of any type of digital addiction across different populations; (3) studies that reported the overall effect size, including but not limited to pooled Pearson correlation coefficients or Spearman rank correlation coefficients (r), standardized mean difference, and odds ratio (OR) along with their 95% CIs or credible intervals.

    Meta-analyses focusing exclusively on a single influencing factor were selected, prioritizing the most recent study with the largest number of included studies when duplicates were present [14]. When multiple systematic reviews addressed the same influencing factor, only the most recent review with the largest number of individual studies providing study-level estimates was included to prevent sample duplication. No language or date restrictions were applied. Articles lacking study-level effect sizes and 95% CIs for systematic reviews, or those based on animal models, were excluded. In addition, we excluded conference abstracts, editorials, narrative reviews, and systematic review protocols.

    Literature Screening and Data Extraction

    This study was conducted by 2 researchers who screened the literature and extracted data according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. In case of disagreement, consulting a third researcher (ZFF) assisted in making the decision. Duplicate literatures were eliminated through the title and abstract, and the full texts were carefully read to extract information such as the first author, publication time, number of studies included and sample size, exposure factors, main outcome indicators, meta-analysis effect model, effect size and its 95% CI. When the same meta-analysis contained multiple health outcome indicators, each outcome indicator was extracted separately.

    Literature Quality Assessment

    In this study, the modified version of the systematic review methodology quality assessment tool (AMSTAR 2 [A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2]) was used to assess the methodological quality of systematic studies [15]. AMSTAR 2 evaluated the methodological quality and credibility of the study from 16 items in 3 dimensions (including 7 key items and 9 non–key items) such as research design and registration, literature search and selection, quality assessment of the study, and data extraction. It demonstrated good inter-rater consistency, practicality, and a wide range of applications. Referencing the interpretation by Zeng et al [16], it was considered that ≤1 non–key item not met was high-quality research, ≥2 non–key items not met was medium-quality research, 1 key item not met was low-quality research, and ≥2 key items not met was extremely low-quality research.

    The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool was used to evaluate the evidence quality level of the literature [17]. The GRADE grading system evaluated the outcome indicators based on 5 downgrade factors such as limitations, heterogeneity, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias. This study stipulated that no downgrade factors were high-quality evidence, the existence of 1 downgrade factor was medium-quality evidence, the existence of 2 downgrade factors was low-quality evidence, and downgrade factors ≥3 were extremely low-quality evidence [18,19]. While the GRADE system typically assigns an initial “very low” quality rating to evidence derived from observational studies due to inherent limitations such as potential confounding and bias, it allows for upgrading or downgrading based on additional factors such as the magnitude of effect, dose-response relationships, and the presence of plausible confounding factors. In this umbrella review, we applied the GRADE framework to evaluate the quality of evidence across meta-analyses, which often include a mix of observational and other study designs. This approach enables a more nuanced assessment of the evidence, considering factors such as risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias. By doing so, we aimed to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the credibility and robustness of the findings related to digital addiction.

    Data Analysis

    This study conducted a methodological assessment using AMSTAR 2 and evaluated the quality of evidence with GRADE, aiming to identify high-quality and significant results from the most up-to-date and comprehensive available evidence. Significant heterogeneity was defined as present when the I²>50% or the P<.1 [20]. A meta-analysis was considered to have a small sample size if there were fewer than 1000 participants in the meta-analysis [21,22]. Notably, a significant publication bias was inferred if the largest weighted effect size in the meta-analysis was subordinate to the overall effect size, indicating a significant small study effect (SSE) [21,23]. Publication bias was quantitatively assessed using the Egger test [24] and the Begg test [25], with a P value <.05 [26] indicating the presence of statistically significant bias.


    Literature Screening Results and Basic Characteristics

    Through a database search and additional manual search, a total of 912 relevant articles were initially identified. After removing duplicates, 536 articles remained. Following a review of titles and abstracts, 387 articles were excluded (266 due to mismatched study types and 151 for being irrelevant). After full-text screening and reviewing in Multimedia Appendix 1, 101 articles were further excluded due to incomplete data or lack of effect size. As illustrated in Figure 1, the final selection process resulted in the inclusion of 18 articles that met the inclusion criteria.

    The included meta-analyses were published between 2020 and 2024, reporting on 24 potential influencing factors related to digital addiction, with personality traits further subdivided into 8 categories. The sample sizes of the studies ranged from 300 to 159,425 participants. The included literature mainly used the New Castle-Ottawa scale (NOS) and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) systematic review checklist to assess research quality. A total 6 studies did not specify the methods used for quality evaluation or risk of bias assessment. The basic characteristics of the included literatures are seen in Table 1.

    ‎
    Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of the search and selection process.
    Table 1. The basic characteristics of the studies.
    StudyRegionStudy design of included studyStudiesCasesInfluencing factorOutcomesQuality assessmentI2 values (%)P value of publication biasSSEa
    Akbari et al [27]IranCase-control, cohort, experimental study, cross-sectional8555,134Fear of missing outInternet addiction—b58.370.23No
    Chung et al [7]Taiwan (China)—5300Probability discountingInternet gaming disorder—85.66<.01Yes
    Mak et al [28]Korea—3734,438NeuroticismFacebook addiction—96>.05Yes
    Noroozi et al [29]IranCross-sectional, case-control, and cohort182589Quality of lifeInternet addictionSTROBEc85.230.6Yes
    Bäcklund et al [30]SwedenCross-sectional, longitudinal4649,192Gaming motivationsGaming disorderJBI checklistd96NDNo
    Ding et al [31]ChinaCross-sectional1411,561Self-esteemSmartphone addictionJBI checklist740.9No
    Eirich et al [32]CanadaObservational, experimental87159,425Behavior problemsScreen time overuseJBI checklist87.8NDNo
    Hao et al [33]ChinaCase-control, cross-sectional2614,638Personal relationshipInternet addictionNOSe94.1>.05Yes
    Li et al [34]China—5038,488Academic burnoutProblematic mobile phone use—91.710.83No
    Rajesh et al [35]India—9635,608Personality traitsFacebook addiction—84.27>.05No
    Wang et al [36]ChinaObservational3129,692Negative life eventsInternet addictionNOS97.80.36No
    Zewde et al [37]Ethiopia—14515,316
    7234    		Male
    Urban residence    		Internet addiction
    Internet addiction    		—
    —    		<0.01
    51.81    		.82
    .94    		Yes
    No
    Hidalgo-Fuentes et al [38]SpainOriginal empirical, quantitative cross-sectional, longitudinal1993,859ResilienceProblematic internet useNOS97.460.76No
    Niu et al [39]China—342432,587
    21,366    		Positive parenting styles
    Negative parenting styles    		Problematic internet use
    Problematic internet use    		NOS
    NOS    		41.77
    30.43    		.45
    .39    		No
    No
    Wan et al [40]ChinaObservational922959,716
    21,844    		Social support
    Self-control    		Mobile phone addiction
    Smartphone addiction    		JBI checklist
    JBI checklist    		96.10
    96.30    		.81
    .19    		No
    No
    Zhuang et al [8]ChinaLongitudinal, prospective, cohort12
    7
    10
    5    		9113
    8444
    9364
    5819    		Depression
    Gaming time
    Parent-child relationship
    Grade point average    		Internet gaming disorder
    Internet gaming disorder
    Internet gaming disorder
    Internet gaming disorder    		NOS
    NOS
    NOS
    NOS    		89.32
    97.07
    62.54
    92.46    		.58
    .80
    .34
    .47    		No
    No
    No
    No
    Hao et al [41]ChinaLongitudinal, cross-sectional3745,364Childhood adverse experiencesInternet addictionNOS91>.05No
    Wu et al [42]China—5359,928Social anxietyProblematic social media useThe Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Research Literature Quality Assessment Inventory92.91<.01No

    aSSE: small study effect.

    bNot mentioned.

    cSTROBE: Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology.

    dJBI checklist: Joanna Briggs Institution Critical Appraisal Checklist.

    eNOS: Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

    Methodological Quality Evaluation

    Through evaluation with the AMSTAR-2 tool, all included meta-analyses exhibited some methodological deficiencies. Specifically, 6 were of moderate quality, 4 of low quality, and 8 of very low quality, with none classified as high quality. For key items, the compliance rates were as follows: item #2 (whether the review reported that its methods were established a priori and explained any major changes to the protocol), item #4 (whether a comprehensive literature search was conducted), item #7 (whether a list of excluded studies and reasons for exclusion were provided), and item #9 (whether a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias in individual studies was used) all had a compliance rate of 83.33% (15/18); the compliance rate for item #11 (whether appropriate methods were used to combine results) was 72.22% (13/18); item #13 (whether bias was explained) had a compliance rate of 33.33% (6/18); and item #15 (whether the authors properly investigated and discussed the potential impact of publication bias) was 55.56% (10/18). The results of the methodological quality evaluation are presented in Table 2.

    Table 2. Methodological quality evaluation.
    StudyItemsMethodological quality
    #1a#2b#3c#4d#5e#6f#7g#8h#9i#10j#11k#12l#13m#14n#15o#16p
    Akbari et al [27]YqYYYYNrYYYNNYNYYNVery low
    Chung et al [28]YYYYNYYYYYYYNYNNLow
    Mak et al [29]YNYYYYYYYNNNNYNNVery low
    Noroozi et al [30]YYNNNYNYYNYNNNNNVery low
    Bäcklund et al [31]YYNPYsYYYPYNYNYNNYYVery low
    Ding et al [32]YYYYYYYYYYYYYNYNModerate
    Eirich et al [33]YYYNNYYYYYYNNNNNVery low
    Hao et al [34]YNYYYYNYYYYNNYNNVery low
    Li et al [35]YNNYNNYYNYNYNYNNVery low
    Rajesh et al [36]YYYYNYYYYNYYNYYNLow
    Wan et al [37]YYYYYYYYYNYNYNYNModerate
    Wang et al [38]YYYPYYYYYYYYYNNYNLow
    Zewde et al [39]YYYYYNYYYYYYNYYNModerate
    Hidalgo-Fuentes et al [40]YYYYYYYYNYYYNYNNVery low
    Niu et al [41]YYYYYYYNPYYNYYYYNLow
    Zhuang et al [8]YYYYYYYNYYYYYYYNModerate
    Hao et al [42]YYYYYYYYYYYYYNNYModerate
    Wu et al [43]YYYYYYPYYYYYYYYYYModerate

    a#1-Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO?

    b#2-Did the report of the review contain an explicit statement that the review methods were established prior to the conduct of the review and did the report justify any significant deviations from the protocol?

    c#3-Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review?

    d#4-Did the review authors use a comprehensive literature search strategy?

    e#5-Did the review authors perform study selection in duplicate?

    f#6-Did the review authors perform data extraction in duplicate?

    g#7-Did the review authors provide a list of excluded studies and justify the exclusions?

    h#8-Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?

    i#9-Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review?

    j#10-Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?

    k#11-If meta-analysis was performed did the review authors use appropriate methods for statistical combination of results?

    l#12-If meta-analysis was performed, did the review authors assess the potential impact of RoB in individual studies on the results of the meta-analysis or other evidence synthesis?

    m#13-Did the review authors account for RoB in individual studies when interpreting/discussing the results of the review?

    n#14-Did the review authors provide a satisfactory explanation for, and discussion of, any heterogeneity observed in the results of the review?

    o#15-If they performed quantitative synthesis did the review authors carry out an adequate investigation of publication bias (small study bias) and discuss its likely impact on the results of the review?

    p#16-Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?

    qY: complaint.

    rN: not complaint.

    sPY: partially complaint.

    Evidence Quality Grading

    Based on the GRADE evaluation system, of the 24 outcome indicators, 1 study provided high-quality evidence, 5 provided moderate-quality evidence, 11 were of low quality, and 7 were of very low quality. The detailed results of the evidence quality assessment are presented in Table 3.

    Table 3. Evidence quality grading.
    Downgrading factors
    StudyInfluencing FactorRisk of BiasaInconsistencybIndirectnesscImprecisiondPublication BiaseEvidence Quality
    Akbari et al [27]Fear of missing outYfYYNgNVery low
    Chung et al [28]Probability discountingNNNNNHigh
    Mak et al [29]Personality traitsNYNNYLow
    Noroozi et al [30]Quality of lifeYYYYYVery low
    Bäcklund et al [31]Gaming motivationsYNYYNVery low
    Ding et al [32]Self-esteemNYNNYLow
    Self-controlYYYYYVery low
    Eirich et al [33]Behavior problemsYNYYNVery low
    Hao et al [34]Personal relationshipNYNNYLow
    Li et al [35]Academic burnoutNYNYNLow
    Rajesh et al [36]Personality traitsNNNNYModerate
    Wan et al [37]Social supportYNYNNLow
    Wang et al [38]Negative life eventsNYNNYLow
    Zewde et al [39]GenderNYNNYLow
    Urban residenceNNYNNModerate
    Hidalgo-Fuentes et al [40]ResilienceYYYYYVery low
    Niu et al [41]Positive parenting stylesNYNYNLow
    Negative parenting stylesNYNYNLow
    Zhuang et al [8]DepressionNYNNYLow
    Gaming timeYYYYYVery low
    Parent-child relationshipNYNNNModerate
    Grade point averageNYYNNLow
    Hao et al [42]Childhood adverse experiencesYNNNNModerate
    Wu et al [43]Social anxietyNNNNYModerate

    aRisk of bias: bias occurs when the results of a study do not represent the truth because of inherent limitations in design or conduct of a study

    bInconsistency: this refers to unexplained variability among the results of the included studies.

    cIndirectness: it refers to the extent to which the people, interventions, and outcome measures are similar to those of interest.

    dImprecision: the authors have the option of decreasing their level of certainty one or two levels if the confidence intervals are wide.

    ePublication Bias: this occurs when the dissemination of research findings is influenced by the nature and direction of results.

    fY: compliant.

    gNY: not compliant.

    Influencing Factors for Digital Addiction

    Intrapersonal Factors

    As shown in Table 4 and Figure 2, most of the included studies were highly significant. In this study, Ding et al [32] discovered that individuals with higher levels of self-esteem (r=−0.25, 95% CI−0.29 to −0.22; P<.001) and self-control (r=−0.48, 95% CI−0.53 to −0.42; P<.001) are more prone to digital addiction. Similarly, Zewde et al [39] found that men are at a higher risk of digital addiction compared with women (OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.43-2.75; P<.001). Furthermore, Zhuang et al [8] reported that individuals with a higher grade point average (r=−0.15, 95% CI −0.25 to −0.16; P<.05) are less likely to be threatened by digital addiction. These findings were rated as moderate evidence in terms of methodological quality with AMSTAR 2 tool.

    Table 4. Factors associated with digital addiction.
    Author (Year)Influencing factorModelConfounding adjustedESa (95% CI)P value
    Intrapersonal factors 
    Akbari et al [27]Fear of missing outRandomNor=0.41 (0.38-0.44)<.001
    Li et al [35]Academic burnoutRandomYesr=0.41 (0.38-0.44)<.001
    Chung et al [28]Probability discountingRandomYesHedges g=−0.32 (–0.85 to −0.20).470
    Mak et al [29]NeuroticismRandomNoSMD=0.54 (0.38-0.69)<.001
    Bäcklund et al [31]Gaming motivationsRandomNor=0.50 (0.45-0.54)<.001
    Ding et al [32]Self-esteem
    Self-control    		Random
    Random    		Yes
    Yes    		r=−0.25 (−0.29 to −0.22)
    r=−0.48 (−0.53 to −0.42)    		<.001
    <.001
    Rajesh et al [36]Openness
    Agreeableness
    Conscientiousness
    Loneliness
    Narcissism
    Impulsivity
    Shyness
    Extraversion    		Random
    Random
    Random
    Random
    Random
    Random
    Random
    Random    		Yes
    Yes
    Yes
    Yes
    Yes
    Yes
    Yes
    Yes    		r=−0.05 (−0.08 to −0.01)
    r=−0.07 (−0.10 to −0.04)
    r=−0.15 (−0.18 to −0.11)
    r=0.23 (0.18-0.27)
    r=0.23 (0.12-0.33)
    r=0.25 (0.18-0.32)
    r=0.20 (0.14-0.25)
    r=0.01 (0.02-0.04)    		<.05
    <.05
    <.001
    <.001
    NSb
    <.001
    <.001
    NS
    Eirich et al [33]Behavior problemsRandomYesr=0.11 (0.09-0.12)<.05
    Zewde et al [39]Male sexFixNoORc 1.92 (1.43-2.75)<.001
    Hidalgo-Fuentes et al [40]ResilienceRandomNor=−0.27 (−0.32 to −0.22)<.001
    Zhuang et al [8]Depression
    Grade point average
    Gaming time    		Random
    Random
    Random    		No
    No
    No    		r=0.18 (0.13-0.23)
    r=−0.15 (−0.25 to −0.16)
    r=0.33 (0.21-0.44)    		<.05
    <.05
    <.05
    Interpersonal factors 
    Hao et al [34]Personal relationship troublesRandomNor=0.36 (0.35-0.38)<.001
    Niu et al [41]Positive parenting stylesFixYesr=−0.14 (−0.17 to −0.11)<.001
    Niu et al [41]Negative parenting stylesFixYesr=0.18 (0.14-0.22)<.001
    Zhuang et al [8]Parent-child relationshipRandomNor=−0.15 (−0.18 to −0.11)<.05
    Social factors 
    Noroozi et al [30]Quality of lifeRandomNoOR 0.39 (0.27-0.55)<.001
    Wang et al [38]Negative life eventsRandomYesr=0.31 (0.28-0.34)<.001
    Wan et al [37]Social supportRandomYesr=−0.17 (−0.21 to −0.13)<.001
    Zewde et al [39]Urban residenceRandomNoOR 2.32 (1.19-4.53)<.001
    Hao et al [42]Childhood adverse experiencesRandomYesr=0.21 (0.18-0.24)<.001
    Wu et al [43]Social anxietyRandomYesr=0.34 (0.19-0.48)<.001

    aES: effect size.

    bNS: not significant.

    cOR: odds ratio.

    ‎
    Figure 2. Forest plot of factors associated with digital addiction. AMSTAR 2: a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews version 2; ES: effect size; g: Hedge’s g; GRADE: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; NS: not significant; OR: odds ratio; *: classified as moderate with AMSTAR 2 or GRADE; **: classified as high with AMSTAR 2 or GRADE.

    On the other hand, the quality assessment conducted using the GRADE tool revealed that Chung’s analyses, which identified a protective impact of the discount probability against digital addiction (r=−0.32, 95% CI −0.85 to −0.20; P<.47), was graded as high-quality evidence [28]. However, the statistical results were not significant. In addition, Rajesh et al [36] found that different personality traits have varying impacts on digital addiction was also rated as moderate evidence quality. Specifically, they suggested that individuals with openness (r=−0.05, 95% CI −0.08 to −0.01; P<.05), agreeableness (r=−0.07, 95% CI −0.10 to −0.04; P<.05), and conscientiousness (r=−0.15, 95% CI −0.18 to −0.11; P<.001) were protected against the addictive potential of digital media. Conversely, those experiencing loneliness (r=0.23, 95% CI 0.19-0.27; P<.001), depression (r=0.18, 95% CI 0.13-0.23; P<.05), impulsivity (r=0.25, 95% CI 0.18-0.32; P<.001), and shyness (r=0.20, 95% CI 0.14-0.25; P<.001) are at a greater risk of developing digital addiction. Although no publication bias was found in the above analyses, it is important to emphasize that none of the analyses addressing intrapersonal factors achieved moderate or high ratings in terms of methodology and quality of evidence.

    Interpersonal Factors

    Of the 5 analyses examining interpersonal factors associated with digital addiction, only 1 study by Zhuang et al [8] met the criteria for moderate methodological and evidence quality with AMSTAR 2 tool. This study focused on parent-child relationship and showed that the stronger the parent-child relationship (r=−0.15, 95% CI −0.18 to −0.11, P<.05), the lower the probability of digital addiction. No risk of publication bias was identified in this analysis (Table 4 and Figure 2).

    Social Factors

    The findings revealed that urban residence (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.19‐4.53; P<.001) by Zewde et al [39], exposure to adverse childhood experiences (r=0.21, 95% CI 0.18‐0.24; P<.001) by Hao et al [42], and the presence of social anxiety (r=0.34, 95% CI 0.19‐0.48; P<.001) by Wu et al [43] were significant predictors of digital addiction. Notably, all 3 analyses were accorded moderate ratings in the evaluation of methodological and the quality of evidence rating with AMSTAR 2 and GRADE tools, and no evidence of publication bias was identified in the analyses. Furthermore, Wan et al [37] suggesting that individuals with stronger social support networks (r=−0.17, 95% CI −0.21 to −0.13, P<.001) exhibited a reduced likelihood of developing digital addiction. However, this particular analysis did not achieve a similar assessment in the quality of evidence, although it was recognized for its moderate methodological quality (Table 4 and Figure 2).


    Principal Findings

    This umbrella review identified a range of intra-personal, interpersonal, and social factors influencing digital addiction. In a comprehensive examination of the aforementioned factors, several studies were noted for their methodological assessment. The studies conducted by Ding et al [32] on self-esteem and self-control, by Zewde et al [39] on male gender, and by Wan et al [37] on social support, all achieved moderate rankings for methodological rigor. However, the evidence for these factors was considered circumstantial or questionable in accuracy, resulting in a classification of low quality. On the other hand, study by Zhuang et al [8] concluded that a strong parent-child relationship significantly mitigated digital addiction, while study by Zewde et al [39] identified urban living as a risk factor. In addition, study by Hao et al [42] on childhood adverse experiences, and study by Wu et al [43] on social anxiety, findings from both of these studies received ratings of moderate methodological quality.

    Intrapersonal factors significantly influence digital addiction, with our study evaluating 21 such factors, of which only 3 received moderate ratings on the AMSTAR 2 and 8 on the GRADE scale, all focusing on the associations between personality traits and digital addiction. Despite some methodological limitations, our findings were consistent with finding by Geng et al [44], indicating that self-control inversely associated with digital addiction, suggesting that individuals with lower self-regulation are more prone to emotional and impulsive behaviors, thereby fostering harmful digital usage patterns. In addition, specific personality traits can serve as protective factors against digital addiction [44,45]. As previous research has indicated, self-esteem, which is a reflection of an individual’s sense of perceived value, is associated with higher self-efficacy and self-control, ultimately reducing addiction risk [46]. Traits such as self-consciousness, characterized by self-discipline and organizational skills, tend to promote caution in digital interactions, favoring real-life experiences [47]. Furthermore, individuals exhibiting higher levels of agreeableness and openness are less likely to encounter risks associated with digital addiction [36,47]. Conversely, traits such as narcissism, characterized by self-centeredness and lack of empathy, may drive individuals to seek internet-based validation, increasing addiction susceptibility [48]. Consistent with previous research [49-53], impulsivity is a notable risk factor for digital addiction, as highly impulsive individuals often struggle to resist internet-based temptations. Shyness may prompt individuals to engage more in digital socialization to avoid in-person interactions, potentially heightening addiction risk [54]. Thus, our results suggest that while positive personality traits may buffer against digital addiction, negative traits can increase vulnerability. At present, cognitive behavioral therapy and psychosocial interventions are recognized as efficacious strategies for mitigating the symptoms of internet addiction. Cognitive behavioral therapy has been shown to substitute impulsive behaviors with more reasoned actions and improve self-control [55], thereby contributing to the prevention and management of digital addition [56]. Psychosocial interventions have been effective in addressing internet addiction and enhancing self-esteem. By focusing on the psychological and social dimensions of the individual, these approaches promote the development of a positive personality and can be effective in curbing digital addition behaviors [57,58]. Furthermore, gender differences are crucial, as males are more likely to develop digital addictions, likely due to their preference for strategy, role-playing, and action genres, which are inherently more addictive [59].

    Among the 4 interpersonal factors associated with digital addiction, 1 study was rated as moderate on both the AMSTAR 2 and GRADE scales, indicating that it provided reasonably convincing evidence through robust methodology [8]. This finding is consistent with previous research, which has demonstrated that enhanced parent-child relationships can effectively reduce the risk of digital addiction among adolescents [60,61]. Research suggests that there is a link between excessive parental screen time and problematic screen behaviors in their offspring. Excessive use of digital devices by parents reduces interaction with their children; this, along with their children’s emulation of their parents’ screen-using habits, contributes to the development of screen-using behaviors in adolescents. This pattern of behavior has the potential to evolve into digital addiction [62,63]. Therefore, providing guidance on the use of digital devices, especially for parents of young children, may become a viable intervention strategy to counteract the emergence of digital addiction in children.

    Six of the included studies explored examined the influence of social factors on digital addiction, with 4 rated as moderate quality based on AMSTAR 2 criteria. However, only 3 of these studies received a moderate rating from GRADE. Evidence indicates that urbanization uniquely affects addiction; urban residents often face environmental pollution and discomfort associated with city life, which can heighten psychological stress and contribute to digital addiction [64]. In addition, a lack of social support emerges as a critical risk factor for internet addiction. Insufficient social connections can lead to unhappiness, prompting individuals to seek emotional fulfillment through social media, potentially worsening addiction issues [65,66]. Late childhood, a pivotal period for social and emotional development, shows a marked negative association between internet engagement and various well-being dimensions. This correlation suggests that the rising levels of unhappiness and anxiety in children are closely linked to increased internet use. Furthermore, adverse childhood experiences related to home environments and parental pressures significantly influence children’s development, leading to increased time spent on digital media [[67,68]]. In addition to the previously mentioned parental digital guidance, group counseling has also been reported to play a significant role in enhancing the self-control abilities of school-aged children with internet addiction [69]. However, when parents are also involved in group counseling, research has proven that it requires parents to have previously successfully dealt with challenges such as social anxiety, social isolation, and social skill deficits, or else group counseling will be much less effective [69].

    Intrapersonal factors influencing digital addiction have been extensively studied, predominantly focusing on personality traits. However, most meta-analyses seem to suffer from methodological flaws, and even those without serious issues often reveal publication bias in original studies, thereby diminishing the quality of the evidence [32,39]. Therefore, it raises concerns about the risk of publication bias, where positive results are more readily published, potentially obscuring the true nature of the cause-and-effect relationship [70]. In contrast, fewer studies examining interpersonal and social factors demonstrate better methodological rigor and evidence quality. These factors often exert their influence on digital addiction indirectly by affecting psychological traits or personality characteristics. For example, Malak et al [71] used structural modeling to show that social support mediates the relationship between anxiety and stress, contributing to internet-based gaming disorders, a form of digital addiction [66]. Thus, it is misleading to solely consider interpersonal and social factors when exploring correlates of digital addiction. Instead, this indicates the need for further research to elucidate the complex interplay between these domains.

    Limitations

    While this umbrella review evaluated numerous factors associated with digital addiction, several limitations persist. First, the focus on published meta-analyses may lead to the omission of factors that are less studied or have not garnered significant attention [72]. Second, the broad scope of the review complicates the generalization of results due to the diversity of research findings included. Finally, many systematic reviews analyzed similar exposure factors and were conducted within a relatively short timeframe, resulting in potential overlap among initial studies. To mitigate this, we prioritized the inclusion of the most recent meta-analyses with the highest number of studies and aimed to exclude those exhibiting considerable overlap with original studies.

    Conclusion

    In conclusion, a range of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and social factors significantly influences an individual’s susceptibility to digital addiction. A rigorous evaluation using the AMSTAR and GRADE frameworks identified negative parent-child relationships, urban residence, adverse childhood experiences, and social anxiety as credible risk factors. These findings are essential for informing effective public health strategies aimed at preventing digital addiction. However, further refinement of the methodologies used to analyze these factors is necessary to enhance the robustness of future research.

    Acknowledgments

    This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No 82473613) and Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation (No 2023A1515030155). The funding sponsors had no role in the design of the study, the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data, the writing of the manuscript, and the decision to publish the results.

    Authors' Contributions

    Authors YH and JQ are recognized as co-first authors of this paper, as they equally contributed to this work, whereas, authors D-LL, PL, and FZ are recognized as co-corresponding authors of this paper. The contact details for the co-corresponding authors are listed below:

    Da-lin Lu, Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, Jinan University, No. 601, Huangpu Avenue West, Tianhe District, Guangzhou, 510632, China. Phone: +86 20 85221343; Fax: +86 20 85221343. Email: dalinlu@jnu.edu.cn

    Peng Lu, Chinese Language and Culture College, Huaqiao University, No. 668 Jimei Avenue, Jimei District, Xiamen, 361021, China. Phone: +86 18750922477; Fax: +86 0592-6683217. Email: lupeng@hqu.edu.cn

    Fangfang Zeng, Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, Jinan University, No. 601, Huangpu Avenue West, Tianhe District, Guangzhou, 510632, China. Phone: +86 20 85221343; Fax: +86 20 85221343. Email: zengffjnu@126.com

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    Multimedia Appendix 1

    Systematic search details in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science.

    DOCX File, 18 KB
    1. Carr N. The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. 2020. ISBN: 393358003
    2. Meng SQ, Cheng JL, Li YY, et al. Global prevalence of digital addiction in general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev. Mar 2022;92(102128):102128. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    3. Hartogsohn I, Vudka A. Technology and addiction: what drugs can teach us about digital media. Transcult Psychiatry. Aug 2023;60(4):651-661. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    4. Block JJ. Issues for DSM-V: internet addiction. Am J Psychiatry. Mar 2008;165(3):306-307. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    5. Guo W, Tao Y, Li X, et al. Associations of internet addiction severity with psychopathology, serious mental illness, and suicidality: large-sample cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res. Aug 11, 2020;22(8):e17560. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    6. Lissak G. Adverse physiological and psychological effects of screen time on children and adolescents: literature review and case study. Environ Res. Jul 2018;164:149-157. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    7. Chung S, Lee HK. Public health approach to problems related to excessive and addictive use of the internet and digital media. Curr Addict Rep. 2023;10(1):69-76. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    8. Zhuang X, Zhang Y, Tang X, Ng TK, Lin J, Yang X. Longitudinal modifiable risk and protective factors of internet gaming disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Behav Addict. Jun 29, 2023;12(2):375-392. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. Kimball HG, Fernandez F, Moskowitz KA, et al. Parent-perceived benefits and harms associated with internet use by adolescent offspring. JAMA Netw Open. Oct 2, 2023;6(10):e2339851. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    10. Tso WWY, Reichert F, Law N, et al. Digital competence as a protective factor against gaming addiction in children and adolescents: a cross-sectional study in Hong Kong. Lancet Reg Health West Pac. Mar 2022;20(100382):100382. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    11. Hester RK, Miller WR. Handbook of alcoholism treatment approaches: effective alternatives. Pergamon Press; 1989. ISBN: 0080364284
    12. Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey CM, Holly C, Khalil H, Tungpunkom P. Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. Int J Evid Based Healthc. Sep 2015;13(3):132-140. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    13. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. Mar 29, 2021;372:n71. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    14. Grooten WJA, Boström C, Dedering Å, et al. Summarizing the effects of different exercise types in chronic low back pain - a systematic review of systematic reviews. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. Aug 22, 2022;23(1):801. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. Sep 21, 2017;358:j4008. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Zeng X, Zhang Y, Kwong JSW, et al. The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review. J Evid Based Med. Feb 2015;8(1):2-10. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    17. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. Apr 2011;64(4):383-394. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Qaseem A, Hicks LA, Etxeandia-Ikobaltzeta I, et al. Pharmacologic treatment of primary osteoporosis or low bone mass to prevent fractures in adults: a living clinical guideline from the American College of Physicians (version 1, update alert). Ann Intern Med. Jun 2024;177(6):38710077. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    19. Andrade JG, Aguilar M, Atzema C, et al. The 2020 Canadian cardiovascular society/Canadian Heart Rhythm Society comprehensive guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation. Can J Cardiol. Dec 2020;36(12):1847-1948. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. JJwc-ho H, The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Vol 5. 2011:1.
    21. Solmi M, Köhler CA, Stubbs B, et al. Environmental risk factors and nonpharmacological and nonsurgical interventions for obesity: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of cohort studies and randomized controlled trials. Eur J Clin Invest. Dec 2018;48(12):e12982. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    22. Qiu J, Zhang S, Feng Y, et al. Efficacy and safety of hepatitis B vaccine: an umbrella review of meta-analyses. Expert Rev Vaccines. 2024;23(1):69-81. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Gao X, Su X, Han X, et al. Unsaturated fatty acids in mental disorders: an umbrella review of meta-analyses. Adv Nutr. Dec 22, 2022;13(6):2217-2236. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    24. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. Sep 13, 1997;315(7109):629-634. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. Dec 1994;50(4):1088-1101. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    26. Sulaiman SK, Musa MS, Tsiga-Ahmed FI, Dayyab FM, Sulaiman AK, Bako AT. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of caregiver acceptance of malaria vaccine for under-five children in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). PLoS ONE. 2022;17(12):e0278224. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    27. Akbari M, Seydavi M, Palmieri S, Mansueto G, Caselli G, Spada MM. Fear of missing out (FoMO) and internet use: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis. J Behav Addict. Dec 17, 2021;10(4):879-900. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. Chung W, Sun CK, Tsai IT, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the clinical implications of probability discounting among individuals with Internet gaming disorder. Sci Rep. Feb 4, 2021;11(1):3177. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    29. Mak KK, Scheer B, Yeh CH, Ohno S, Nam JK. Associations of personality traits with internet addiction: a cross-cultural meta-analysis with a multilingual approach. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. Dec 2021;24(12):777-798. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    30. Noroozi F, Hassanipour S, Eftekharian F, Eisapareh K, Kaveh MH. Internet addiction effect on quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis. ScientificWorldJournal. 2021;2021(2556679):2556679. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    31. Bäcklund C, Elbe P, Gavelin HM, Sörman DE, Ljungberg JK. Gaming motivations and gaming disorder symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Behav Addict. Sep 26, 2022;11(3):667-688. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    32. Ding Y, Wan X, Lu G, et al. The associations between smartphone addiction and self-esteem, self-control, and social support among Chinese adolescents: a meta-analysis. Front Psychol. 2022;13(1029323):1029323. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    33. Eirich R, McArthur BA, Anhorn C, McGuinness C, Christakis DA, Madigan S. Association of Screen Time With Internalizing and Externalizing Behavior Problems in Children 12 Years or Younger: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry. May 1, 2022;79(5):393-405. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    34. Hao QH, Peng W, Wang J, Tu Y, Li H, Zhu TM. The correlation between internet addiction and interpersonal relationship among teenagers and college students based on Pearson’s correlation coefficient: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Psychiatry. 2022;13(818494):818494. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    35. Li S, Xu M, Zhang Y, Wang X. The more academic burnout students got, the more problematic mobile phone use they suffered? A meta-analysis of mainland Chinese adolescents and young adults. Front Psychol. 2022;13(1084424):36726513. [CrossRef]
    36. Rajesh T, Rangaiah B. Relationship between personality traits and facebook addiction: A meta-analysis. Heliyon. Aug 2022;8(8):e10315. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    37. Wan X, Huang H, Jia R, Liang D, Lu G, Chen C. Association between mobile phone addiction and social support among mainland Chinese teenagers: A meta-analysis. Front Public Health. 2022;10(911560):911560. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    38. Wang J, Hao QH, Tu Y, et al. The relationship between negative life events and internet addiction disorder among adolescents and college students in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Psychiatry. 2022;13(799128):799128. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    39. Zewde EA, Tolossa T, Tiruneh SA, et al. Internet addiction and its associated factors among African high school and university students: systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Psychol. 2022;13(847274):847274. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    40. Hidalgo-Fuentes S, Martí-Vilar M, Ruiz-Ordoñez Y. Problematic internet use and resilience: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nurs Rep. Feb 24, 2023;13(1):337-350. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    41. Niu X, Li JY, King DL, Rost DH, Wang HZ, Wang JL. The relationship between parenting styles and adolescent problematic Internet use: A three-level meta-analysis. J Behav Addict. Sep 19, 2023;12(3):652-669. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Hao F, Li P, Liang Z, Geng J. The association between childhood adverse experiences and internet addiction: A meta-analysis. Acta Psychol (Amst). Jun 2024;246:104270. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    43. Wu W, Huang L, Yang F. Social anxiety and problematic social media use: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Addict Behav. Jun 2024;153(107995):107995. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    44. Geng Y, Gu J, Wang J, Zhang R. Smartphone addiction and depression, anxiety: The role of bedtime procrastination and self-control. J Affect Disord. Oct 1, 2021;293(415-21):415-421. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. Gagné JP, Radomsky AS. Beliefs about losing control, obsessions, and caution: An experimental investigation. Behav Res Ther. Mar 2020;126(103574):103574. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    46. Mei S, Yau YHC, Chai J, Guo J, Potenza MN. Problematic internet use, well-being, self-esteem and self-control: data from a high-school survey in China. Addict Behav. Oct 2016;61(74-9):74-79. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    47. Błachnio A, Przepiorka A, Senol-Durak E, Durak M, Sherstyuk L. The role of personality traits in Facebook and Internet addictions: A study on Polish, Turkish, and Ukrainian samples. Comput Human Behav. Mar 2017;68:269-275. [CrossRef]
    48. James C, Davis K, Charmaraman L, et al. Digital life and youth well-being, social connectedness, empathy, and narcissism. Pediatrics. Nov 2017;140(Suppl 2):S71-S75. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    49. Schou Andreassen C, Billieux J, Griffiths MD, et al. The relationship between addictive use of social media and video games and symptoms of psychiatric disorders: a large-scale cross-sectional study. Psychol Addict Behav. Mar 2016;30(2):252-262. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    50. Cerniglia L, Guicciardi M, Sinatra M, Monacis L, Simonelli A, Cimino S. The use of digital technologies, impulsivity and psychopathological symptoms in adolescence. Behav Sci (Basel). Jul 24, 2019;9(8):82. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    51. Monacis L, Palo VD, Griffiths MD, Sinatra M. Validation of the Internet Gaming Disorder Scale - Short-Form (IGDS9-SF) in an Italian-speaking sample. J Behav Addict. Dec 2016;5(4):683-690. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    52. Andreassen CS, Griffiths MD, Gjertsen SR, Krossbakken E, Kvam S, Pallesen S. The relationships between behavioral addictions and the five-factor model of personality. J Behav Addict. Jun 2013;2(2):90-99. [CrossRef]
    53. Monacis L, de Palo V, Griffiths MD, Sinatra M. Exploring individual differences in online addictions: the role of identity and attachment. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2017;15(4):853-868. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    54. Wang P, Pan R, Wu X, et al. Reciprocal associations between shyness, depression, and internet gaming disorder among Chinese adolescents: a cross-lagged panel study. Addict Behav. Jun 2022;129(107256):107256. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    55. Alimoradi Z, Lin CY, Broström A, et al. Internet addiction and sleep problems: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sleep Med Rev. Oct 2019;47(51-61):51-61. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    56. Pu Y, Liu Y, Qi Y, Yan Z, Zhang X, He Q. Five-week of solution-focused group counseling successfully reduces internet addiction among college students: a pilot study. J Behav Addict. Dec 22, 2023;12(4):964-971. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    57. Cain N, Gradisar M. Electronic media use and sleep in school-aged children and adolescents: A review. Sleep Med. Sep 2010;11(8):735-742. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    58. Dresp-Langley B, Hutt A. Digital Addiction and Sleep. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Jun 5, 2022;19(11):6910. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    59. van den Eijnden R, Koning I, Doornwaard S, van Gurp F, Ter Bogt T. The impact of heavy and disordered use of games and social media on adolescents’ psychological, social, and school functioning. J Behav Addict. Sep 1, 2018;7(3):697-706. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    60. Macur M, Pontes HM. Internet Gaming Disorder in adolescence: investigating profiles and associated risk factors. BMC Public Health. Aug 12, 2021;21(1):1547. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    61. Jeong H, Yim HW, Lee SY, et al. A partial mediation effect of father-child attachment and self-esteem between parental marital conflict and subsequent features of internet gaming disorder in children: A 12-month follow-up study. BMC Public Health. Apr 15, 2020;20(1):484. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    62. Wong RS, Tung KTS, Rao N, et al. Parent technology use, parent-child interaction, child screen time, and child psychosocial problems among disadvantaged families. J Pediatr. Nov 2020;226:258-265. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    63. Geurts SM, Koning IM, Vossen H, Van den Eijnden R. A qualitative study on children’s digital media use and parents’ self-interest. J Child Fam Stud. 2022;31(7):2015-2026. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    64. Yasuma N, Watanabe K, Nishi D, et al. Urbanization and Internet addiction in A nationally representative sample of adult community residents in Japan: A cross-sectional, multilevel study. Psychiatry Res. Mar 2019;273:699-705. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    65. Graciyal DG, Viswam D. Social Media and Emotional Well-being: Pursuit of Happiness or Pleasure. Asia Pacific Media Educator. Jun 2021;31(1):99-115. [CrossRef]
    66. Firat S, Tek S, Erk MA. Cyber mother’s womb: Social support expectation in social network and emotional violence. Perspect Psychiatr Care. Oct 2022;58(4):2828-2836. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    67. Jackson DB, Testa A, Fox B. Adverse childhood experiences and digital media use among U.S. Children. Am J Prev Med. Apr 2021;60(4):462-470. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    68. McDool E, Powell P, Roberts J, Taylor K. The internet and children’s psychological wellbeing. J Health Econ. Jan 2020;69(102274):102274. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    69. Yeun YR, Han SJ. Effects of psychosocial interventions for school-aged children’s internet addiction, self-control and self-esteem: Meta-analysis. Healthc Inform Res. Jul 2016;22(3):217-230. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    70. Viechtbauer W. Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. Psychometrika. 2007;72(2):269-271. [CrossRef]
    71. Malak MZ, Shuhaiber AH, Alsswey A, Tarawneh A. Social support as the mediator for the relationship between internet gaming disorder and psychological problems among university students. J Psychiatr Res. Aug 2023;164(243-50):243-250. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    72. Ioannidis JPA, Patsopoulos NA, Rothstein HR. Reasons or excuses for avoiding meta-analysis in forest plots. BMJ. Jun 21, 2008;336(7658):1413-1415. [CrossRef] [Medline]

    ‎
    AMSTAR 2: A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2
    GRADE: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation
    JBI checklist: Joanna Briggs Institution Critical Appraisal Checklist
    NOS: New Castle-Ottawa scale
    OR: odds ratio
    PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
    SSE: small study effect

    Edited by John Torous; submitted 27.09.24; peer-reviewed by Dilek Yıldırım Gürkan, Xianpeng Xu, Zhide Liang; final revised version received 21.03.25; accepted 06.04.25; published 28.07.25.

    Copyright

    © Yun Han, Jiamin Qiu, Chengbin Shi, Shiqi Huang, Haokun Huang, Xinman Wang, Sui Zhu, Dalin Lu, Peng Lu, Fangfang Zeng. Originally published in JMIR Mental Health (https://mental.jmir.org), 28.7.2025.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Mental Health, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://mental.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.