Identifying Dimensions to Include in the Assessment of Concerned Significant Others of People With Problematic Internet Use: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Context Over the last 2 decades, problematic Internet use (PIU) has become a serious public health issue. Greater accessibility and daily use of the Internet have contributed to the emergence of this new social phenomenon. Scientific literature has exploded in the last few years, with studies focusing on its conceptualization, assessment, risk factors, comorbidities, and treatment. However, very few studies have taken into consideration the concerned significant others (CSOs) of people with PIU. Objective: This article aims to document the experiences of CSOs in order to target dimensions that should be included when evaluating the needs of this type of service user. Method: This scoping review identified 6 peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2019. Results: The results highlight the following dimensions to take into consideration when evaluating the needs of partners: screen time, communication, conflicts, intimacy, financial problems, distribution of chores and responsibilities, psychological and emotional impacts, partners’ view of their spouse, and coping strategies. None of the reviewed articles examined the experiences of parents of adolescents with PIU. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first scoping review that has been conducted on this topic. The results obtained emphasize the importance of conducting further research to better understand the issues faced by all types of CSOs of people with PIU and develop intervention programs tailored to their specific needs. Contexte: Au cours des deux dernières décennies, l’utilisation problématique d’Internet (UPI) est devenue un grave problème de santé publique. L’accessibilité accrue et l’utilisation quotidienne d’Internet ont contribué à l'émergence de ce nouveau phénomène social. La littérature scientifique a explosé ces dernières années avec des études portant sur la conceptualisation, l'évaluation, les facteurs de risque, les comorbidités et le traitement. Cependant, très peu d'études ont pris en considération les personnes significatives concernées (PSC) by "membres de l'entourage (ME) des personnes présentant une UPI. Objectif: Cet article vise à documenter les expériences des ME afin de cibler les dimensions qui devraient être incluses lors de l'évaluation des besoins de ce type d’utilisateurs de services. Méthode: Cette revue de la portée a permis d’identifier six articles évalués par des pairs et publiés entre 2000 et 2019. Résultats: Les résultats mettent en évidence les dimensions suivantes à prendre en considération lors de l'évaluation des besoins des partenaires de vie: temps d'écran, communication, conflits, intimité, problèmes financiers, répartition des tâches et des responsabilités, impacts psychologiques et émotionnels, vision des partenaires sur leur conjoint et stratégies d’adaptation. Aucun des articles examinés ne s’est penché sur les expériences des parents d’adolescents présentant une UPI. Conclusion: À notre connaissance, il s’agit de la première revue exploratoire réalisée sur ce sujet. Les résultats obtenus soulignent l’importance de poursuivre les recherches afin de mieux comprendre les problèmes rencontrés par tous les types de ME de personnes présentant une UPI et de développer des programmes d’intervention adaptés à leurs besoins spécifiques.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".