Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Systematic review examines the effects of nomophobia on health outcomes in university students, suggesting significant health implications.
Objective: The review will examine the association between nomophobia and health outcomes among university students. Introduction: Nomophobia is characterized by the fear of losing access or connectivity to one’s mobile phone, due to issues such as technical problems, battery depletion, or involuntary separation. As nomophobia is a relatively recent problem, data quantifying the adverse effects are crucial, and its relationship with physical, psychological, and psychosocial health consequences among university students remains unclear. Eligibility criteria: This review will include cross-sectional, case-control, and cohort studies focusing on university students, regardless of their sex and geographic location, who were assessed to be nomophobic (based on the Nomophobia Questionnaire [NMP-Q] developed in 2015), that report their physical, psychological, and psychosocial health consequences due to nomophobia. Methods: This review will follow the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of etiology and risk. Academic and non-academic databases and gray literature will be searched, including MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science Core Collection, ProQuest, Health and Medical Collection (ProQuest), PsycINFO (Ovid), and Google Scholar (up to 20 pages). Titles, abstracts, and full texts of included studies will be screened by 2 independent reviewers, with any disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Critical appraisal will be conducted using JBI checklists. Where possible, the studies will be pooled using random effects meta-analysis. If statistical pooling is not possible, the findings will be presented in narrative format, including tables and figures. Certainty of the evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Review registration: PROSPERO CRD420251002138
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ashok et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: