Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Prospective cross-sectional study reveals phubbing behavior elevates procedural pain in women undergoing intrauterine insemination, highlighting anxiety-mediated pathways.
To evaluate the relationship between phubbing behavior, state anxiety, and procedural pain perception in women undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI). This prospective cross-sectional analytical study included 50 women undergoing IUI. Phubbing behavior was assessed using the Generic Phubbing Scale Short Form, state anxiety using the STAI-State form, and procedural pain using a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS). Correlation, group comparison, multivariable linear regression, and exploratory indirect-effect analyses were performed. The median phubbing score was 29.0 (25.0–38.0), while mean STAI-State and VAS scores were 38.1 ± 8.5 and 4.1 ± 1.4, respectively. Phubbing scores differed significantly according to daily phone use duration and bedtime phone-use frequency (both p < 0.001). VAS scores were also significantly different across daily phone use and bedtime phone-use categories ( p = 0.037 and p = 0.011, respectively). Phubbing was positively correlated with STAI-State (ρ = 0.398, p = 0.004) and VAS scores (ρ = 0.494, p < 0.001). STAI-State showed a strong positive correlation with VAS pain scores ( r = 0.771, p < 0.001). In exploratory multivariable regression, phubbing remained independently associated with STAI-State score (B = 0.3774, p = 0.003) and VAS pain score (B = 0.0421, p = 0.008). STAI-State was also independently associated with VAS pain score (B = 0.0947, p < 0.001). Exploratory indirect-effect analysis identified a significant indirect statistical association between phubbing and VAS pain involving STAI-State (B = 0.0357, 95% CI 0.0141–0.0626). Phubbing behavior was associated with higher state anxiety and procedural pain during IUI, and the phubbing–pain association included a significant indirect statistical component involving state anxiety.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Soysal et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: