Problematic Internet Use (PIU) is a growing concern among adolescents in developing countries like Nepal due to increased access to electronic devices and the internet. Excessive use is associated with academic difficulties, inattention, and social isolation. Although it is an emerging concern, there is limited evidence on factors that contribute to PIU among students in Nepal. Thus, this study aimed to assess the prevalence of PIU and its associated factors among higher secondary school students of Kathmandu Metropolitan City (KMC). A cross-sectional study was conducted among 406 students in grades 11 and 12. Participants were selected using multistage random sampling. A self-administered questionnaire, the Internet Addiction Test (IAT), was used for data collection. Bivariate analysis was performed using the Chi-square test and bivariate binary logistic regression analysis. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine the factors associated with PIU. Variables with a p-value < 0.1 in bivariate analysis were included in the multivariate logistic regression model. The mean (±SD) age of the participants was 17.22 ± 1.03 years. This study found that 42.6% (95% CI: 37.0%-47.0%) of participants had PIU. Participants aged 19 years and above (AOR = 2.16, 95% CI:1.81-5.24), those from non-agricultural family income (AOR = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.07-2.25), and those who preferred YouTube (AOR = 1.70, 95% CI: 1.07-2.72), and Facebook (AOR = 1.65, 95% CI: 1.40-2.06) were at higher risk of PIU. Similarly, participants who used the internet in the evening (AOR = 2.01, 95% CI: 1.09-3.69), at night (AOR = 2.03, 95% CI: 1.21-3.38), and over 8 hours per day (AOR = 2.69, 95% CI: 1.48-4.91) had higher odds of PIU. This study revealed a high prevalence of PIU among adolescents. The study findings highlight the need for targeted interventions, including awareness programs, school-based preventive strategies and regulation of internet use time to promote healthy internet behavior among students.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rajbanshi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: