Cross-sectional study explores the link between internet addiction, impulsivity, and stress in medical representatives, suggesting the need for targeted interventions.
Background: Internet addiction is increasingly recognized as a behavioral health concern and has been associated with impulsivity, low self-esteem, and psychological stress. Methodology: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 125 medical representatives recruited from an urban setting. Internet addiction was assessed using Young’s Internet Addiction Test (YIAT), impulsivity with the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, self-esteem with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and occupational stress with the Professional Life Stress Scale. Correlation analyses and independent-samples t-tests were used to examine associations and group differences between problematic and non-problematic internet users. Results: The mean internet addiction score was 44.36 ± 20.70. Based on YIAT scores, 47 participants (37.6%) were classified as problematic internet users and 78 (62.4%) as non-problematic users. Internet addiction severity was positively correlated with attention impulsivity (r = 0.63, P < 0.001), motor impulsivity (r = 0.56, P < 0.001), planning impulsivity (r = 0.26, P < 0.01), and professional life stress (r = 0.35, P < 0.01), and negatively correlated with self-esteem (r = -0.35, P < 0.01). Compared with non-problematic users, problematic internet users had significantly higher attention, motor, and planning impulsivity scores, greater professional life stress, and lower self-esteem (all P < 0.001). Problematic internet use among medical representatives was found to be associated with higher impulsivity, greater occupational stress, and lower self-esteem. Attention and motor impulsivity emerged as particularly strong correlates. Conclusions: These findings highlight the importance of early screening and workplace-based preventive interventions targeting stress management, self-regulation, and self-esteem in professionals with high screen exposure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ghosal et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: