首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health >How Have Researchers Acknowledged and Controlled for Academic Work Activity When Measuring Medical Students’ Internet Addiction? A Systematic Literature Review
【2h】

How Have Researchers Acknowledged and Controlled for Academic Work Activity When Measuring Medical Students’ Internet Addiction? A Systematic Literature Review

机译:研究人员如何在衡量医学生的互联网成瘾时确认和控制学术工作活动?系统文献综述

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Internationally, medical students’ Internet Addiction (IA) is widely studied. As medical students use the Internet extensively for work, we asked how researchers control for work-related Internet activity, and the extent to which this influences interpretations of “addiction” rates. A search of PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar was conducted on the search phrase of “medical students” and “internet addiction” in March 2020. In total, 98 studies met our criteria, 88 (90%) used Young’s Internet Addiction Test, and the studies’ IA rates ranged widely. Little note was taken of work-related activity, and, when discussed, had little to no impact on the interpretation of Internet “addiction”. Studies seldom accounted for work-related activities, researcher bias appears to influence their position, “usage” appears conflated with “addiction”, and correlations between “addiction” and negative behaviours are frequently confused with one-way causation. In spite of IA’s not being officially recognised, few researchers questioned its validity. While IA may exist among medical students, its measurement is flawed; given the use of the Internet as a crucial medical education tool, there is the risk that conscientious students will be labelled “addicted”, and poor academic performance may be attributed to this “addiction”.
机译:国际上,医学生互联网成瘾(IA)被广泛研究。由于医学生将互联网广泛用于工作,我们询问研究人员如何控制与工作相关的互联网活动,以及这影响“成瘾”率的解释的程度。在2020年3月的“医学生”和“互联网成瘾”的搜索短语上搜索PubMed,Cinahl,Scops和Google学者的搜索。总共有98项研究达到了我们的标准,88(90%)二手年轻的互联网成瘾试验,研究的IA率广泛远。很少有关与工作相关的活动,并且在讨论时,对互联网“成瘾”的解释几乎没有影响。研究很少占与工作有关的活动,研究员偏见似乎影响了他们的位置,“使用”出现在“成瘾”中出现,“成瘾”与负行为之间的相关性经常与单向因果关系混淆。尽管IA没有正式认可,但很少有研究人员质疑其有效性。虽然IA可能存在于医学生中,但其测量缺陷;鉴于使用互联网作为一个关键的医学教育工具,有勤勉的学生将被标记为“上瘾”的风险,并且学术表现差可能归因于这种“成瘾”。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号