Nomophobia and its effects on seafarers

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

New technologies for ships affect many aspects of seafarers’ lives at work. Nowadays, many shipowners provide their ships with internet access for the personal use of the crew. After all these developments, nomophobia is no longer a phenomenon far from seafarers. Nomophobia affects mental health and motivation in seafarers, like all people who can use smartphones. Until now, there has been no study investigating nomophobia in seafarers and its effects on life at sea.

OBJECTIVE:

This study aimed to determine the prevalence of nomophobia among seafarers and examine the causes and consequences of differences between groups.

METHODS:

A previously designed and tested questionnaire was used to determine nomophobia and its effects on seafarers. Three hundred fifty one seafarers participated in the study. ANOVA and T-tests were performed with SPSS 22 package program to find significant differences.

RESULTS:

Nomophobia differed significantly according to age groups, gender, and education level. Headache and fatigue increased in direct proportion to the level of nomophobia.

CONCLUSION:

It was found that 65.2% of the seafarers had moderate to severe nomophobia.

Keywords

Mobile phone addiction workplace safety seafarers

1 Introduction

The word nomophobia is used to describe a mental condition in which people experience fear of being disconnected from their cell phones [1]. In other words, nomophobia is phone addiction [2], and this addiction affects individuals dramatically [1, 3]. Cell phones have been used not only for communication purposes like calling and texting but also for other purposes such as using social media, listening to music, utilizing navigation, managing e-mails [4]. At the end of 2019, 5.1 billion people (66% of the global population) were using mobile phones; this number increased by 600 million people compared to 2015. In addition, 3.8 billion people (49% of the global population) used mobile internet, growing 1.1 billion people since 2015 [5]. Mobile phone usage is increasing worldwide; according to data from the Household Use of Information Technologies Research conducted in Turkey, 99.4% of households have mobile phones [6].

Nomophobia has been associated with many adverse psychological conditions [7, 8]. As a mental disorder, nomophobia may cause feeling uncomfortable, irritable, or anxious when the mobile phone cannot be used [9]. There are various and different clinical features of nomophobia; spending too much time on the phone, constantly carrying a charger or extra battery, worrying when a cell phone is not close, worrying when out of network coverage or low battery, checking cell phone screen frequently for new alerts, sleeping with the phone, high charges to cell phones is to spend [10, 11].

Seafarers interact one-on-one with a limited community. Also, they need to communicate and socialize with the rest of the community as they are far from home. Life at sea is not as advantageous as communication comfort we are used to when it comes to using personal communication tools, especially since mobile communications operators’ services are often difficult to access.

“A vessel likened to a mobile factory including huge and dangerous machinery in a limited area is often exposed to marine hazards and heavy weather conditions” [12]. Homesickness and lack of communication significantly affect a seafarer’s attitude; studies show that the absence of family and social relationships is a stress factor for seafarers [13]. These social and physical factors cause burnout in seafarers [14]. Meeting the telecommunications needs of crew members is an essential factor in keeping seafarers in the profession for long periods [15]. Communication needs must be met in order to break young seafarers’ negative perceptions of life at sea [16]. Mobile phones with internet connections are one of the most important means of technology that enable seafarers to compensate for their communication needs [17]. Continuity in maritime transport is a susceptible issue because a fleet of seafarers that does not have continuity in our seas will also pose a problem in preventing maritime accidents [18].

Chamber of Shipping and European Community Shipowners’ Associations conducted the survey on providing internet access to seafarers for personal use onboard ships from December 2018 to January 2019. The aim of the survey was to collect information from shipping companies on the provision of internet access to seafarers for personal use onboard ships. According to survey results, 82% of companies provide internet access to seafarers for personal use onboard ships, the majority (58%) provide it at no cost for seafarers. At the same time, some ask seafarers for a reasonable charge; 96% of seafarers use personal electronic devices for internet access on board [19].

In a study in which seafarers evaluated the communication facilities and internet access on board, as the average age of the participants decreases, their demands for communication facilities and internet access increase [15], it should not be forgotten studies show that nomophobia is a higher risk for young people [20].

Internet access is a critical need for seafarers today, and providing seafarers with this access has proven to improve their mental health and boost morale and well-being [19]. Internet access and mobile phone usage play an essential role and meeting specific needs [17]. Seafarers may feel forgotten and abandoned because they work in an isolated environment, and uninterrupted communication can prevent seafarers from such thoughts [21]. It is necessary to mention the negative aspects of mobile phone use as well as the positive sights. Seafarers who don’t get enough sleep due to nomophobia have high-stress levels due to insomnia, which will negatively affect their mental health [22]. Recent studies emphasize that the use of mobile phones is effective in the occurrence of accidents on ships. As in road transportation, the use of mobile phones and mobile devices in maritime transportation distracts users and affects the occurrence of accidents. Kaptan et al. [23] emphasized that the use of mobile phones and mobile devices was effective in the occurrence of accidents in 19 of 290 (6.5%) collision and grounding accidents on merchant ships. This new situation has made the study of nomophobia in seafarers very serious. Unlike many other professions, seafarers lead a life away from their families. They spend their resting time in their cabins on the ship during their work, not their home. This long-distance makes the phone more critical to sailors and can increase their dependence on it. In recent years, the effects of nomophobia on seafarers have not been adequately investigated due to the widespread use of mobile phones and the internet on ships. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the existence of nomophobia among seafarers and examine the causes and consequences of differences between groups.

2 Methods

The Nomophobia Questionnaire was used to measure nomophobia among seafarers. The questionnaire was delivered to seafarers via the internet through companies and associations. A total of 377 seafarers responded to the survey. The results of 26 participants were not evaluated because they were incomplete or inaccurate. As a result, the analysis was completed with 351 seafarers.

The smartphone was described as equipment with a touch screen, providing mobile internet access over Wi-Fi or cellular networks, incorporating the installation of smartphone applications and media players, and other functions such as digital cameras and GPS-based navigation.

The questionnaire consists of two parts. The first part includes questions on demographic characteristics, and the second part is about the Nomophobia Diagnostic Test created to evaluate the level of nomophobia [24]. The questionnaire consists of a total of 20 questions on a 7-point Likert scale, with 1 = the lowest score and 7 = the highest score on the scale. The Ethics Committee of Bartin University approved the protocol of this study (2021-SSB-0008).

Informed consent was obtained from all participating. The questionnaire did not contain any items that could be used to identify the participants, and the seafarers’ answers were kept confidential and anonymous.

The collected data were statistically analyzed with SPSS version 22. ANOVA and T-tests were performed with the SPSS 22 package program.

Scoring 20 and below were classified as not nomophobic. Those who scored between 21 and 60 were considered mild, those between 61 and 100 were considered moderate, and those who scored between 101 and 140 were considered severe nomophobia [20].

3 Result and discussion

Despite all the efforts of IMO (the international maritime organization), the maritime profession today is a male-dominated occupation as it has in history. Today, only two percent of the world’s seafarers are female [25]. For this reason, only 30 of the 351 seafarers participating in the study are female. The descriptive analyses of the participants are shown in Table 1.

Table 1
Nomophobia statistical data based on age, gender, and education

Age N M SD SE

18-23 108 77.22 20.99 2.02

24-34 112 77.87 16.17 1.53

35-44 83 63.29 16.46 1.81

45-54 29 58.34 9.44 1.75

≥55 19 52.84 8.07 1.85

Gender N M SD SE

Female 30 93.57 16.29 2.97

Male 321 69.17 17.97 1.00

Education N M SD SE

Middle school 27 53.48 8.39 1.62

High school 62 56.08 8.01 1.02

University 250 77.04 18.41 1.17

Postgrad 12 69.17 23.24 6.71

Total 351 71.25 19.07 1.02

Age	N	M	SD	SE
18-23	108	77.22	20.99	2.02
24-34	112	77.87	16.17	1.53
35-44	83	63.29	16.46	1.81
45-54	29	58.34	9.44	1.75
≥55	19	52.84	8.07	1.85
Gender	N	M	SD	SE
Female	30	93.57	16.29	2.97
Male	321	69.17	17.97	1.00
Education	N	M	SD	SE
Middle school	27	53.48	8.39	1.62
High school	62	56.08	8.01	1.02
University	250	77.04	18.41	1.17
Postgrad	12	69.17	23.24	6.71
Total	351	71.25	19.07	1.02

First of all, it was examined whether the age variable significantly changed the nomophobia score. One-way ANOVA test and homogeneity of variances test were performed first in order to make a detailed examination. As a result of the one-way ANOVA test, it was seen that the change in age groups significantly affected the level of nomophobia (p < 0.05). It was also found that variances are not homogeneously distributed (p< α). For this reason, it was deemed appropriate to perform the Tamhane test, one of the Post-Hoc tests, in order to examine the variation between age groups. There is no significant difference in nomophobia score between the 18-23 and 24-35 age groups. Among other age groups, the level of nomophobia decreases significantly as age increases (Table 2). In this respect, our study is parallel with many previous studies [26 –28]. A study conducted with adolescents determined that telephone addiction decreases with age [29]. Due to the fact that it is forbidden to have people under the age of 16 among those working at sea and that seafarers under the age of 18 cannot be employed at risk and night duties, there was no participant in this age group in our study [30].

Table 2

Effects of age, gender, and education difference on nomophobia

Age		MD	SE	p value	95% CI
18-23	24-34	-.64	2.53	1.00	-7.81	6.53
	35-44	13.93^*	2.71	.00	6.26	21.61
	45-54	18.88^*	2.67	.00	11.23	26.53
	≥55	24.38^*	2.74	.00	16.46	32.30
24-34	18-23	.64	2.53	1.00	-6.53	7.81
	35-44	14.58^*	2.37	.00	7.87	21.29
	45-54	19.52^*	2.33	.00	12.82	26.23
	≥55	25.02^*	2.40	.00	17.98	32.07
35-44	18-23	-13.93^*	2.71	.00	-21.61	-6.26
	24-34	-14.58^*	2.37	.00	-21.29	-7.87
	45-54	4.94	2.52	.42	-2.29	12.18
	≥55	10.45^*	2.59	.00	2.92	17.98
45-54	18-23	-18.88^*	2.67	.00	-26.53	-11.23
	24-34	-19.52^*	2.33	.00	-26.23	-12.82
	35-44	-4.94	2.52	.42	-12.18	2.29
	≥55	5.50	2.55	.31	-2.02	13.03
≥55	18-23	-24.38^*	2.74	.00	-32.30	-16.46
	24-34	-25.02^*	2.40	.00	-32.07	-17.98
	35-44	-10.45^*	2.59	.00	-17.98	-2.92
	45-54	-5.50	2.55	.31	-13.03	2.02
Gender		MD	SE	p value	95% CI
Female	Male	24.40	3.41	.00	17.70	31.09
Education		MD	SE	p value	95% CI
Middle school	High school	-2.60	1.91	.70	-7.84	2.64
	University	-23.56^*	1.99	.00	-28.98	-18.13
	Postgrad	-15.69	6.90	.23	-37.26	5.89
High school	Middle school	2.60	1.91	.70	-2.64	7.84
	University	-20.96^*	1.55	.00	-25.06	-16.85
	Postgrad	-13.09	6.79	.39	-34.58	8.40
University	Middle school	23.56^*	1.99	.00	18.13	28.98
	High school	20.96^*	1.55	.00	16.85	25.06
	Postgrad	7.87	6.81	.85	-13.64	29.37
Postgrad	Middle school	15.69	6.90	.23	-5.89	37.26
	High school	13.09	6.79	.39	-8.40	34.58
	University	-7.87	6.81	.85	-29.37	13.64

An independent sample t-test was conducted to examine the effect of gender on the nomophobia score. According to the test results, gender significantly affects the nomophobia score (p < 0.05). The score for nomophobia among female seafarers was significantly higher than that of male seafarers (Table 2). Although there are several contradictory views [29, 31], the conclusion reached by many authors is that gender significantly affects the level of nomophobia [26, 32]. This can be explained by the fact that women tend to form more active relationships than men [33].

The effect of another variable, education level, on the nomophobia score has been investigated. One-way ANOVA test and homogeneity of variances test were performed first to carried out a detailed examination. As a result of the one-way ANOVA test, it was seen that the change in education levels significantly affected the level of nomophobia (p < 0.05). It was also found that variances are not homogeneously distributed (p< α). Consequently, it was deemed appropriate to perform the Tamhane test, one of the Post-Hoc tests, to examine the variation between education levels. While university graduates differ significantly from middle and high school graduates, no significant differences were found between the other groups. As most of the previous studies were done on individuals with similar education levels, no comparable studies were found for education levels.

In addition to the nomophobia scale, the participants were asked how often they experienced symptoms such as headache and fatigue. Participants were asked to rate the questions on symptoms on a scale of 1 to 5. The distribution of headache and fatigue symptoms according to the level of nomophobia is given in Table 3. Headache was 1.47 in people with mild nomophobia, while it was 2.01 in moderate level and 2.76 in severe level. The average headache level in total was found to be 1.88 on the 5-point Likert scoring scale. Fatigue was 1.99 at the mild level, 2.68 at the moderate level, and 3.14 at the severe level. The average fatigue in total was found as 2.48 on the 5-point Likert scoring scale.

Table 3

Statistical data of symptoms according to nomophobia levels

Symptoms	Nomophobia score group	N	M	SD	SE
Headache	Mild	122	1.47	.62	.06
	Moderate	200	2.01	.87	.06
	Severe	29	2.76	.99	.18
	Total	351	1.88	.88	.05
Fatigue	Mild	122	1.99	.73	.07
	Moderate	200	2.68	.96	.07
	Severe	29	3.14	.99	.18
	Total	351	2.47	.96	.05

The effect of nomophobia level on headache and fatigue has been investigated. First of all, a one-way ANOVA test and homogeneity of variances test were conducted to find out whether there was a significant difference between groups. In the one-way ANOVA test, it was found that headache and fatigue differ significantly with the level of nomophobia (p < 0.05). In the homogeneity of variances test, it was observed that the variances of headache data were homogeneously distributed, while the variances of fatigue data were not homogeneously distributed. For this reason, while the Post-Hoc test made to examine how the headache symptoms are decomposed was selected as Tukey, the Tamhane test was used to examine how the fatigue symptom was decomposed, and the results are given in Table 4. Both symptoms were found to increase significantly as the level of nomophobia increased. At the same time, there are no exceptions to this issue in headache. When the fatigue symptom was examined, although there was an increase between moderate and high levels of nomophobia, no significant difference was found. The study of Farooqui et al. stated that the level of nomophobia was associated with fatigue but could not be associated with headache [31]. According to Szyjkowska et al., the headache was found to be significantly affected by the frequency of phone use [34]. It was stated by Aguilera-Manrique et al. [35] that heavy mobile phone use causes sleeplessness, while sleeplessness causes fatigue and other symptoms.

Table 4

Effect of nomophobia levels on reported symptoms

Symptoms	Nomophobia levels		MD	SE	p value	95% CI
Headache	Mild	Moderate	-.54^*	.09	.00	-.76	-.33
		Severe	-1.29^*	.17	.00	-1.68	-.90
	Moderate	Mild	.54^*	.09	.00	.33	.76
		Severe	-.75^*	.16	.00	-1.12	-.37
	Severe	Mild	1.29^*	.17	.00	.90	1.68
		Moderate	.75^*	.16	.00	.37	1.12
Symptoms	Nomophobia score group		MD	SE	p value	95% CI
Fatigue	Mild	Moderate	-.68^*	.09	.00	-.91	-.46
		Severe	-1.15^*	.19	.00	-1.64	-.66
	Moderate	Mild	.68^*	.09	.00	.46	.91
		Severe	-.46	.19	.07	-.95	.03
	Severe	Mild	1.15^*	.19	.00	.66	1.63
		Moderate	.46	.19	,07	-,028	.95

There are several limitations that affect the study. The fact that the participation in the study was voluntary and the pace of work in the maritime sector was high decreased the participation rate by looking at the number of people reached by the survey. Due to the up-to-date theme, fieldwork is limited to 2020 and 2021. Finally, the data used in the study are limited to the qualities measured by the Nomophobia Questionnaire.

4 Conclusion

This study was conducted to measure nomophobia in seafarers and to identify the factors that cause differences, using a questionnaire widely accepted in the literature. It also draws attention to some of the symptoms that sailors show according to the level of nomophobia. Nomophobia levels of all seafarers were found to be mild and above. It was found that 65.2% of the seafarers had moderate to severe nomophobia, while the remainder had mild nomophobia. The level of nomophobia was significantly higher in female seafarers compared to male seafarers. Participants also noticed a few symptoms they thought were connected to their cell phone use. These were mostly reported as headaches and fatigue. Among these symptoms, fatigue and headache were found to have a statistically significant relationship with different degrees of nomophobia.

One of the reasons why seafarers have high nomophobia levels is that the seafaring profession entails a unique set of challenges and requirements. When the duties inside the ship are examined, mental fatigue is at the highest level, as well as physical fatigue. The fact that a person has been at sea for months is already a cause for longing. In addition, the limited freedom of these people, intense and long working hours, and the presence of periodic fixed-frequency sounds, together with being away from their families and social circles, increase their mobile phone and communication needs. Naturally, seafarers try to solve their physical distance by staying in touch with the world with the help of mobile phones.

Spending time on mobile phones and the internet should be avoided, especially during bridge watch. Mistakes are inevitable as a result of not focusing on the work being done. On the other hand, bridge watch is a vital task that requires the utmost attention, whether in navigation or other cases. Accidents that may occur during this duty can cause both financial losses and result in environmental disasters.

Considering that most of the world trade is made by sea and the size of the disruptions that may be experienced is enormous, the responsibility of seafarers is enormous. Necessary measures should be taken quickly to reduce the level of nomophobia and minimize the associated symptoms. Seafarers’ stay at sea should be shortened, their living standards should be increased, and they should feel mentally and physically ready to employment onboard for certain periods before embarking on the ship.

Future studies would be helpful to better define all possible signs and symptoms of nomophobia and describe in detail the questionnaire used to diagnose this phobia and its effects on seafarers.

Ethical approval

The protocol was approved by the research ethics board of the Bartin University (2021-SSB-0008).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all participants in this study.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not for profit sectors.

References

Kung

. Rise of ‘nomophobia’: More people fear loss of mobile contact: CNN Digital; 2012 [Available from: https://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/06/tech/mobile/nomophobia-mobile-addiction/index.html.

Dixit

, Shukla

, Bhagwat

, Bindal

, Goyal

, Zaidi

, et al. A study to evaluate mobile phone dependence among students of a medical college and associated hospital of central India. Indian journal of community medicine: official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine. 2010;35(2):339–41.

Lin

C-Y

, Griffiths

, Pakpour

. Psychometric evaluation of Persian Nomophobia Questionnaire: Differential item functioning and measurement invariance across gender. Journal of behavioral addictions. 2018;7(1):100–8.

Rowden

, Watson

. Mobile phone use and driving: the message is just not getting through. Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety. 2014;25(1):41.

GSMA. 2020 Mobile Industry Impact Report: Sustainable Development Goals. London: GSM Association; 2020.

Turkish Statistical Institute. Household Information Technology Usage Survey, 2004-2020. Turkish Statistical Institute; 2020.

Darvishi

, Noori

, Nazer

, Sheikholeslami

, Karimi

. Investigating Different Dimensions of Nomophobia among Medical Students: A Cross-Sectional Study. Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences. 2019;7(4):573–8.

Gonzalez-Cabrera

, Leon-Mejia

, Perez-Sancho

, Calvete

. Adaptation of the Nomophobia Questionnaire (NMP-Q) to Spanish in a sample of adolescents. Actas Esp Psiquiatr. 2017;45(4):137–44.

King

, Valenca

, Nardi

. Nomophobia: the mobile phone in panic disorder with agoraphobia: reducing phobias or worsening of dependence? Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology. 2010;23(1):52–4.

10.

Bragazzi

, Del Puente

. A proposal for including nomophobia in the new DSM-V. Psychology Research and Behavior Management. 2014;7:155–60.

11.

Kaviani

, Young

, Robards

, Koppel

. Nomophobia and self-reported smartphone use while driving: An investigation into whether nomophobia can increase the likelihood of illegal smartphone use while driving. Transport Res F-Traf. 2020;74:212–24.

12.

Altinpinar

, Basar

. Investigation of the effect of vessel type on seafarers’ safety culture. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics. 2021:1–6.

13.

Oldenburg

, Jensen

H-J

, Latza

, Baur

. Seafaring stressors aboard merchant and passenger ships. International Journal of Public Health. 2009;54(2):96–105.

14.

Uğurlu

, Yildiz

, Aydin

, Kaptan

, Wang

. Analysis of occupational burnout utilising Maslach inventory: a case study of Turkish male seafarers. Maritime Policy & Management. 2021;48(8):1124–37.

15.

Papachristou

, Stantchev

, Theotokas

. The role of communication to the retention of seafarers in the profession. Wmu Journal of Maritime Affairs. 2015;14(1):159–76.

16.

Hult

, Ljung

. Discussion and recommendations concerning seafarers’ perceptions and attitudes to work and occupation. Swedish Seafarers and Seafaring Occupation A Study of Work-related Attitudes During Different Stages of Life at Sea. 2012:177–89.

17.

Oldenburg

, Jensen

. Needs and possibilities for ship’s crews at high seas to communicate with their home. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health. 2019;32(6):805–15.

18.

Yıldız

, Uğurlu

, Yuksekyıldız

. Occupational Issues and Expectations of Turkish Deck Cadets. TransNav: International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation. 2016;10(3):403–8.

19.

ICS, ECSA. Survey on the provision of internet access to seafarers for personal use on board ships. 2019.

20.

Yildirim

, Correia

A-P

, editors. Understanding nomophobia: A modern age phobia among college students. International Conference on Learning and Collaboration Technologies; 2015: Springer.

21.

Sliskovic

, Penezic

. Lifestyle factors in Croatian seafarers as relating to health and stress on board. Work. 2017;56(3):371–80.

22.

Sliskovic

. Seafarers’ well-being in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study. Work. 2020;67(4):799–809.

23.

Kaptan

, Ugurlu

, Wang

. The effect of nonconformities encountered in the use of technology on the occurrence of collision, contact and grounding accidents. Reliability Engineering & System Safety. 2021;215:107886.

24.

Yildirim

. Exploring the dimensions of nomophobia: Developing and validating a questionnaire using mixed methods research: Iowa State University; 2014.

25.

IMO. Women in Maritime 2020 [Available from: https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/TechnicalCooperation/Pages/WomenInMaritime.aspx.

26.

Gezgin

, Sumuer

, Arslan

, Yildirim

. Nomophobia prevalence among pre-service teachers: A case of Trakya University. Trakya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2017;7(1).

27.

Kuscu

, Gumustas

, Rodopman Arman

, Goksu

. The relationship between nomophobia and psychiatric symptoms in adolescents. International Journal of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice. 2021;25(1):56–61.

28.

Yildirim

, Sumuer

, Adnan

, Yildirim

. A growing fear: Prevalence of nomophobia among Turkish college students. Information Development. 2016;32(5):1322–31.

29.

Yildiz

Durak H

. Investigation of nomophobia and smartphone addiction predictors among adolescents in Turkey: Demographic variables and academic performance. The Social Science Journal. 2019;56(4):492–517.

30.

ILO. Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 2006 [Available from: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—ed_norm/—normes/documents/normativeinstrument/wcms_090250.pdf.

31.

Farooqui

, Pore

, Gothankar

. Nomophobia: an emerging issue in medical institutions? Journal of Mental Health. 2018;27(5):438–41.

32.

Arpaci

, Baloglu

, Ozteke Kozan

, Kesici

. Individual Differences in the Relationship Between Attachment and Nomophobia Among College Students: The Mediating Role of Mindfulness. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2017;19(12):e404.

33.

Gökçearslan

, Mumcu

, Haşlaman

, Çevik

. Modelling smartphone addiction: The role of smartphone usage, self-regulation, general self-efficacy and cyberloafing in university students. Computers in Human Behavior. 2016;63:639–49.

34.

Szyjkowska

, Bortkiewicz

, Szymczak

, Makowiec-Dabrowska

. Subjective symptoms related to mobile phone use–a pilot study. Polski merkuriusz lekarski: organ Polskiego Towarzystwa Lekarskiego. 2005;19(112):529–32.

35.

Aguilera-Manrique

, Marquez-Hernandez

, Alcaraz-Cordoba

, Granados-Gamez

, Gutierrez-Puertas

. The relationship between nomophobia and the distraction associated with smartphone use among nursing students in their clinical practicum. PLoS One. 2018;13(8):e0202953.