High cellphone use associated with greater risk of depression among young women aged 15–24 years in Soweto and Durban, South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ubiquity of cellular phone (cellphone) use in young people's daily lives has emerged as a priority area of concern for youth mental health. OBJECTIVE: This study measured the prevalence of depression and its association with high cellphone use among youth in Soweto and Durban, South Africa. METHODS: We analysed cross-sectional, baseline survey data among youth aged 16-24 who participated in a dual-site cohort study, 'AYAZAZI', conducted from 2014 to 2017. The primary outcome was depression using the 10-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, with a score of ≥ 10 indicating probable depression. Cellphone use was measured via self-reported average number of hours of active use, with 'high cellphone use' defined as daily usage of ≥ 8. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed the independent relationship between high cellphone use and probable depression, adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: < .001). In the overall adjusted model, youth reporting high daily cellphone use had higher odds of probable depression (aOR: 1.83, 95% CI: 1.16-2.90). In gender-stratified models, high daily cellphone use was associated with probable depression among women (aOR: 2.51, 95% CI: 1.47-4.31), but not among men (aOR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.35-2.16). CONCLUSIONS: Among a cohort of South African youth, we found a high prevalence of probable depression and high cellphone use (30%). The findings indicate a need for intersectoral initiatives focused on meaningful mental health support for South African youth to support positive growth and development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".