Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cross-sectional study measures smartphone addiction and poor sleep quality among medical students, indicating serious implications.
Background: Excessive smartphone use, commonly referred to as smartphone addiction, has become increasingly common among young adults. In medical students, such behaviour has been associated with negative outcomes, particularly poor sleep quality. Considering the academic pressure and clinical responsibilities of MBBS students, understanding this relationship is essential. This study aimed to measure the Objectives: prevalence of smartphone addiction among MBBS students, evaluate their sleep quality, and analyse the link between smartphone use and sleep disturbances. A cross-sectional survey was carried out in April 2024 among 127 MBBS students aged 1 Methods: 8 to 23 years. Participants were chosen using simple random sampling. Smartphone addiction was assessed using the Smartphone Addiction Scale–Short Version (SAS-SV), and sleep quality was measured with the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, t-tests, and Pearson's correlation. Of the 127 students (50 males and 77 females), 27.5% were found to be addicted to smart Results: phones, while 55.9% were at high risk. The primary use reported was for entertainment (59.05%), with academic use and calling accounting for about 10%. Poor sleep quality (PSQI ≥ 5) was noted in 51.9% of students, with major concerns related to sleep latency (54.5%) and perceived sleep quality (34.6%). A significant correlation was observed between smartphone addiction and poor sleep quality (r = 0.06, p < 0.05). Conclusion: he findings indicate a high rate of smartphone addiction and sleep issues among MBBS students. These results highlight the importance of raising awareness about healthy smartphone use and the need for better sleep habits to protect students' overall well-being, academic success and better patient care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
George et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: