Problematic smartphone usage, prevalence and patterns among university students: A systematic review

Background In the last decade, smartphones have become an indispensable part of our daily life. However, little is known of when smartphone usage becomes problematic and how it can affect mental and physical health. Therefore, this paper aims to analyse to which extent university students suffer from problematic smartphone usage (PSU) and if there are recognisable patterns or predictive factors. Methods This systematic review used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. To identify eligible primary research studies, a pre-defined search strategy was carried out in four databases, including Cochrane databases, CHINAL Plus, MEDLINE, and PubMed. The obtained literature was screened using inclusion and exclusion criteria and critically appraised with the AXIS tool resulting in 11 peer-reviewed studies in English. Results The prevalence of PSU in university students varied between 36.5% and 67%, with a mean of 52%. Across the literature, PSU was significantly associated with mental health problems like depression, and anxiety. Furthermore, smartphone overuse can lead to physical problems (e.g., neck pain or eye strain) and negatively influence university students' academic performance and sleep quality. Our results suggest that the duration spends on the phone is a potential predictive factor for PSU. Limitations Most studies in this systematic review are cross-sectional; therefore, no causal explanations can be given. Moreover, the measurement scales used are based on self-reported answers, which carry the risk of recall bias. Conclusion This study demonstrates that PSU is very common and needs to be considered in the population group of university students. More longitudinal studies are required in order to identify causal relationships between PSU and possible predictive factors.</p

DataSheet_1_Accuracy and impact on quality of life of real-time continuous glucose monitoring in children with hyperinsulinaemic hypoglycaemia.docx

ObjectiveContinuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is the standard of care for glucose monitoring in children with diabetes, however there are limited data reporting their use in hyperinsulinaemic hypoglycaemia (HH). Here, we evaluate CGM accuracy and its impact on quality of life in children with HH.MethodsReal-time CGM (Dexcom G5 and G6) was used in children with HH aged 0-16years. Data from self-monitoring capillary blood glucose (CBG) and CGM were collected over a period of up to 28days and analysed. Quality of life was assessed by the PedsQL4.0 general module and PedsQL2.0 family impact module, completed by children and their parents/carers before and after CGM insertion. Analysis of accuracy metrics included mean absolute relative difference (MARD) and proportion of CGM values within 15, 20, and 30% or 15, 20, and 30 mg/dL of reference glucose values >100 mg/dL or ≤100 mg/dL, respectively (% 15/15, % 20/20, % 30/30). Clinical reliability was assessed with Clarke error grid (CEG) analyses.ResultsProspective longitudinal study with data analysed from 40 children. The overall MARD between reference glucose and paired CGM values (n=4,928) was 13.0% (Dexcom G5 12.8%, Dexcom G6 13.1%). The proportion of readings meeting ?/15 and /20 were 77.3% and 86.4%, respectively, with CEG analysis demonstrating 97.4% of all values in zones A and B. Within the hypoglycaemia range (ConclusionUse of CGM for children with HH is feasible, with clinically acceptable accuracy, particularly in the hypoglycaemic range. Quality of life measures demonstrate significant improvement after CGM use. These data are important to explore use of CGM in disease indications, including neonatal and paediatric diabetes, cystic fibrosis and glycogen storage disorders.</p

The systematic literature review process: a simple guide for public health and allied health students

A literature review is a key part of all academic research that informs researchers of the existing body of knowledge. Reviews conducted systematically are becoming more appealing to the researcher about two reasons. Firstly, they are robust, strong, comprehensive and reproducible and can appropriately serve the background review of any primary research. Secondly, they are qualified to be a stand-alone piece of academic work that contributes to the scientific body of knowledge. Although researchers and students in higher education who wish to write their dissertations are informed about the need for generating a literature review for primary research, when it comes to conducting a full systematic review, they may have some confusion and doubt on the distinction between a traditional literature review and a systematic review. This paper aims to clarify what a systematic review entails and take the readers' attention through the practical steps in conducting a systematic review. So, more of a practical step-by-step guide, rather than theoretical discussion of content, has been included. This paper would benefit early-career researchers, undergraduate students and many post-graduate students who wish to write their papers or dissertations based on a systematic review