Skip to content

Advertisement

You're viewing the new version of our site. Please leave us feedback.

Learn more

BMC Public Health

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Association between mobile phone use and inattention in 7102 Chinese adolescents: a population-based cross-sectional study

  • Feizhou Zheng1,
  • Peng Gao1,
  • Mindi He1,
  • Min Li1,
  • Changxi Wang2,
  • Qichang Zeng3,
  • Zhou Zhou1,
  • Zhengping Yu1 and
  • Lei Zhang1Email author
BMC Public Health201414:1022

https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-1022

Received: 2 July 2014

Accepted: 29 September 2014

Published: 1 October 2014

Abstract

Background

The dramatic growth of mobile phone (MP) use among young people has increased interest in its possible health hazards in this age group. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to investigate the association between MP use and inattention in adolescents.

Methods

A total of 7720 middle school students were involved in this cross-sectional study. Inattention was assessed as defined for the Attention Deficit component of Attention deficit/Hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text rev. [DSM-IV-TR]). The demographic characteristics and information on MP use were included in the questionnaire. Chi-square tests and logistic regression models were used to analyze the data.

Results

In total, 7102 (91.99%) valid questionnaires were obtained. After adjusted for confounders, inattention in adolescents was significantly associated with MP ownership, the time spent on entertainment on MP per day, the position of the MP during the day and the mode of the MP at night. The strongest association between inattention and the time spent on the MP was among students who spent more than 60 minutes per day playing on their MP.

Conclusions

Our study shows some associations between MP use and inattention in Chinese adolescents. Decreasing MP usage to less than 60 minutes per day may help adolescents to stay focused and centered.

Keywords

Mobile phoneInattentionChinese adolescentsCross-sectional study

Background

With the incorporation of modern electronic products into daily life, adolescents now have a longer lifetime exposure to mobile phone (MP). China has developed into one of the world's largest MP markets. As today’s adolescents frequently use MP and other communication tools in their homes, community environments and at school [1], they have longer exposure time to MP. In 2014, the proportion of adolescents who own MP is more than 60% in Shanghai, China [2] and still increasing. Additionally, with the increasing use of MP, concerns have been raised in a number of countries about the adverse health effects of MP use on adolescents. World Health Organization (WHO) has identified studies on the potential health effects of MP in children and adolescents as a high priority research area in their research agenda for radiofrequency fields [3].

Making calls, sending messages, surfing the internet and playing games on MP are very common in adolescents’ lives, as is the wide use of smart phones. By the end of 2013, there were a total of 500 million people using MP to browse the internet in China [4]. It is unclear if MP use has adverse physiological and psychological effects on the development of adolescents. Inattention is one of the most prevalent mental health disorders in adolescents [5]. Inattentive symptoms, in particular, were strongly associated with problematic video game use or overuse also with other media [6]. These popularly operated MP games, often in brief segments, are not attention demanding and offer immediate rewards, which may encourage further playing [7]. Exposure to MP radio frequency electromagnetic fields might affect nonspecific neurologic performance such as attention and cognition [8]. Additionally, children absorb more energy from external electromagnetic fields than adults [9]. A growing number of studies have focused on the harmful effects of exposure to MP; however, only a few have investigated the association between inattention in adolescents and MP use.

MP has been found to be associated with inattention in a few studies [10, 11]. One explanation of this association could be that the head is more exposed to electromagnetic radiation from MP rather than any other part of the body. Alternatively, subjects suffering from insomnia [12] or headaches [13] were found to have more inattention and many studies have reported that insomnia [14, 15] or headaches [16, 17] occur more frequently with increasing exposure to MP. Furthermore, adolescents with inattention are at a higher risk of other psychiatric illnesses such as mood and conduct disorders, and substance abuse [18, 19]. However, in a study using a MP exposure device, no difference in attention was observed between the sham and MP exposure groups [20, 21]. Attention functions may also be differentially enhanced after exposure to the electromagnetic field emitted by MP [2224].

Although there have been several studies on the association between MP use and attention, the results were still controversial. Our present study investigated the possible association between MP use and inattention in Chinese adolescents using a cross-sectional design.

Methods

Ethics statement

The protocol of this study was approved by the Third Military Medical University Ethical Committee. All study participants obtained written consent from their parents or guardians.

Subjects

In this cross-sectional survey, questionnaires were sent out to 7720 currently enrolled students from 4 middle schools in southwestern China. After obtaining written consent from the students' parents or guardians, the questionnaires were distributed and collected during school hours by the research staff who had previously received epidemiological survey training. The students could ask the research staff if they had any problems with the questions while they filled out the survey in the presence of their class teacher. Among the 7426 (96.19%) students who responded to the questionnaire, 7102 (91.99%) valid questionnaires were analyzed after excluding those with incomplete information.

Questionnaire

The questionnaire used in our research was designed to capture information about demographics, MP use, and inattention.

Demographic information

In the section on demographic information, name, sex (male or female), age, school, grade (7–12), and address (urban/rural) were listed.

Information on MP use

To obtain information about the time spent using a MP, students were asked to answer the following questions: “Do you own a MP?”, “At what age did you start using a MP?”, “How much time do you spend making phone calls per day?”, and “How much time do you spend on MP entertainment (playing games and browsing the internet) per day?”. MP usage was assessed using these questions: “How do you answer the phone (hold it close to your ear, hands-free, or use headphones)?”; “Where do you put your MP during the day (not carrying, hanging in front of the chest, in coat pockets, in trouser pockets, or in bags)?”; and “What is the mode of your MP at night (powered on and beside your head, powered on and kept away from your head, or powered off)?”. For all the above questions, MP use included using other people’s phones. The question “Is there a mobile base station around your home or school?” was asked as well. Additionally, their answers would be checked with the information about the address of mobile base station provided by the Telco Providers and the consistent answers were used for analysis.

Inattention

Inattention was described as a lack of attention or a reduced attention span. Some examples of inattention include: avoiding school projects (which involve a long periods of concentration); losing school supplies; difficulties completing household chores; easily distractible et al. The prevalence of inattention in our study was screened using the most stable psychometric properties of the Attention Deficit component of Attention deficit/Hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text rev. [DSM-IV-TR]) [2527]. “A” criteria were used by the teachers who had previously received epidemiological survey training. The choice of nine inattention descriptions was “yes/no”. Inattention was defined when the teacher chose six or more “yes” responses to the descriptions.

Statistical analysis

Chi-squared tests (χ 2) were used to compare the prevalence of inattention between different classifications of MP usage. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were obtained using logistic regression models to assess the possible associations between MP ownership, years of MP usage, minutes spent on calls each day, minutes spent on entertainment each day, habit of answering the phone, position of MP during the day, mode of MP at night and the prevalence of inattention in adolescents. Adjusted OR were also calculated after adjusting for age, sex, urban/rural residence and whether living close to mobile base stations. The variables with P < 0.1 were included in logistic regression models used to assess the association. Assessment of the fit between the model and the data was gauged by the goodness-of-fit test and the log likelihood Chi-square test. Continuous variables, such as the years of MP usage, the minutes spent on calls daily and the time of entertainment, were split into tertiles. Choosing six or more “yes” of the inattention descriptions was defined inattention. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05 in this study. Categorical variables were summarized using the corresponding percentages, and continuous variables were generally summarized using descriptive statistics (mean ± standard deviation (SD)). Statistical analysis was undertaken using SPSS version 19.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

Results

Descriptive information

Out of 7720 currently enrolled students in the 4 middle schools, 294 (3.81%) did not return the questionnaire. Out of the 7426 returned questionnaires, 324 (4.20%) were incomplete. In total, 7102 (91.99%) questionnaires completed in all sections (including the Demographic information, Information on MP, and Inattention) were used in the analysis. The participants included 3613 males (50.87%) and 3489 females (49.13%). The mean age was 15.26 ± 1.77 years. A total of 5033 (70.87%) of the participants resided in urban areas, and 2069 (29.13%) were from rural areas.

Overall, 5668 (79.81%) participants owned MP at the time of the survey and had been using a MP for a mean of 3.50 ± 2.48 years. Participants spent 57.36 ± 71.96 minutes on entertainment and 8.64 ± 15.48 minutes on making calls daily (Table 1). The details of the socio-demographic characteristics and MP usage are given in Table 1.
Table 1

Descriptive data of socio-demographic characteristics and MP usage (N = 7102)

Characteristic

Prevalence n (%)

Sex

 

Male

3613 (50.87)

Female

3489 (49.13)

Age

 

12

248 (3.49)

13

968 (13.63)

14

1340 (18.87)

15

1355 (19.08)

16

1119 (15.76)

17

906 (12.76)

18

669 (9.42)

19

194 (2.73)

20

19 (0.27)

Urban/Rural

 

Rural

2069 (29.13)

Urban

5033 (70.87)

MP Ownership

 

Own MP

5668 (79.81)

Don't own MP

1434 (20.19)

Whether close to mobile base stations

 

Close to mobile base stations

3920 (55.20)

Far away from mobile base stations

3182 (44.80)

Characteristic

Mean ± SD

Min-Max

Age

15.26 ± 1.77

12-20

MP use years

3.50 ± 2.48

0-18

Minutes on call (min/day)

8.64 ± 15.48

0-180

Time of entertainment (min/day)

57.36 ± 71.96

0-480

Association between MP use and inattention

There were 7294 (94.48%) responses to the inattention questions. The overall prevalence of inattention was 69.79% out of the 7102 valid questionnaires in this study. After adjusted for age, sex, area of residence (urban/rural) and whether living close to mobile base stations, the prevalence of inattention was significantly associated with MP ownership (OR 2.92; 95% CI 2.51-3.39) and time spent on entertainment daily (OR 1.87; 95% CI 1.28-2.73). Additionally, there was a positive association between inattention and the time spent on entertainment on MP (21–60 minutes per day spent on entertainment, OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.06-1.97; >60 minutes per day spent on entertainment, OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.28-2.59; Table 2). We analyzed the association between inattention and the position of MP during the day. The results showed significant differences. Compared to not carrying the MP (OR 1.00), hanging the MP in front of the chest (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.19-0.99) and putting the MP in a trouser pocket (OR 1.34; 95% CI 1.10-1.62) were both significantly associated with inattention. Moreover, participants who powered off their MP at night showed significantly less inattention than those students who left their MP on at night (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.63-0.90; Table 3).
Table 2

Association between MP use time and inattention (n = 7102)

 

n (%)

P^

OR (95% CI)

Adjusted OR (95% CI)#

MP ownership

 

0.000

  

No (ref)

541 (38.21)

 

1.00

1.00

Yes

4414 (79.29)

 

5.73 (5.05-6.50)

2.92 (2.51-3.39)**

MP use years

 

0.095

  

0-2 years (ref)

1568 (76.34)

 

1.00

1.00

3-4 years

1444 (79.04)

 

1.16 (0.99-1.35)

1.07 (0.88-1.31)

> 4 years

1132 (78.61)

 

1.14 (0.97-1.34)

1.05 (0.85-1.30)

Minutes on call

 

0.000

  

0-2 years

    

0-1 min/day (ref)

344 (81.32)

 

1.00

1.00

1-6 min/day

594 (79.41)

 

0.87 (0.64-1.18)

1.15 (0.82-1.60)

> 6 min/day

410 (76.64)

 

0.76 (0.55-1.06)

1.16 (0.81-1.65)

3-4 years

    

0-1 min/day

327 (82.78)

 

1.05 (0.73-1.51)

1.06 (0.72-1.57)

1-6 min/day

495 (82.14)

 

1.07 (0.77-1.49)

1.18 (0.83-1.68)

> 6 min/day

398 (80.08)

 

0.95 (0.68-1.34)

1.31 (0.90-1.91)

>4 years

    

0-1 min/day

261 (79.33)

 

0.86 (0.60-1.25)

0.92 (0.62-1.37)

1-6 min/day

378 (83.44)

 

1.23 (0.86-1.76)

1.46 (0.99-2.17)

> 6 min/day

338 (78.42)

 

0.81 (0.58-1.14)

1.12 (0.77-1.64)

Time of entertainment

 

0.000

  

0-2 years

    

0-20 min/day (ref)

548 (79.42)

 

1.00

1.00

21-60 min/day

459 (79.69)

 

1.03 (0.78-1.36)

1.45 (1.06-1.97)*

> 60 min/day

317 (78.66)

 

0.98 (0.72-1.32)

1.82 (1.28-2.59)**

3-4 years

    

0-20 min/day

410 (82.66)

 

1.22 (0.90-1.64)

1.11 (0.80-1. 53)

21-60 min/day

440 (82.09)

 

1.18 (0.88-1.58)

1.33 (0.97-1.83)

> 60 min/day

353 (80.78)

 

1.19 (0.87-1.62)

1.80 (1.27-2.56)**

>4 years

    

0-20 min/day

334 (76.78)

 

0.98 (0.72-1.32)

0.99 (0.71-1.38)

21-60 min/day

325 (82.70)

 

1.28 (0.92-1.78)

1.39 (0.97-1.98)

> 60 min/day

294 (80.55)

 

1.11 (0.80-1.53)

1.87 (1.28-2.73)*

P^obtained through χ 2 test.

#Adjusted for sex, age, Urban/Rural residence and whether living close to mobile base stations.

*P < 0.05. **P < 0.001.

OR: odds ratio, 95% CI: 95% confidence interval.

Table 3

Association between MP use status and inattention (n = 7102)

 

n (%)

P^

OR (95% CI)

Adjusted OR (95% CI)#

Habit of answering the phone

 

0.798

  

Close to ear (ref)

2616 (80.20)

 

1.00

1.00

Hands-free

783 (80.72)

 

0.99 (0.82-1.18)

1.07 (0.88-1.29)

Use headphone

567 (81.23)

 

1.02 (0.83-1.26)

1.04 (0.83-1.30)

Position of MP during the day

 

0.000

  

Do not carry (ref)

401 (84.24)

 

1.00

1.00

Hang in front of chest

12 (44.44)

 

0.24 (0.12-0.46)**

0.44 (0.19-0.99)*

In coat pockets

239 (77.60)

 

1.14 (0.87-1.49)

1.28 (0.95-1.73)

In trouser pockets

1080 (78.89)

 

0.98 (0.83-1.15)

1.34 (1.10-1.62)*

In bags

348 (85.50)

 

1.14 (0.88-1.47)

1.04 (0.78-1.37)

Mode of MP at night

 

0.000

  

Power on and beside their heads (ref)

922 (52.12)

 

1.00

1.00

Power on and keep away from their heads

466 (42.02)

 

0.93 (0.77-1.13)

0.87 (0.71-1.06)

Power off

612 (32.74)

 

0.86 (0.72-1.01)

0.75 (0.63-0.90)*

P^obtained through χ 2 test.

#Adjusted for sex, age, Urban/Rural residence and whether living close to mobile base stations.

*P < 0.05. **P < 0.001.

OR: odds ratio, 95% CI: 95% confidence interval.

Discussion

This population-based cross-sectional study is one of the first studies to investigate the association between MP use and inattention in adolescents in China. Our results showed that the prevalence of inattention was considerable among middle school students. In this study, inattention in adolescents was significantly associated with MP ownership, the time spent on entertainment on the MP every day, the position of the MP during the day and the mode of the MP at night.

The prevalence of inattention in the present study was much higher than previous attention studies whether related to MP use or not [28, 29]. Compared with the two previous studies investigating several symptoms including headache, fatigue and dizziness, our study focused only on inattention. This might have led the students to focus on this one symptom, resulting in the high prevalence of reported inattention. In contrast, the Mortazavi's study indicated that people in Iran are usually less familiar with the health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields, therefore, the number of individuals reporting subjective symptoms was considerably lower [29]. The higher prevalence of inattention in our study compared to other studies was also likely due to the higher prevalence of MP ownership (79.82%) in our study than the Iran study (30%).

Our results showed that the prevalence of inattention was significantly higher in MP-owning students compared to non-MP students. This finding concurs with Mortazavi's other studies which showed that there was a statistically significant relationship between the use of cell phones and attention disorder [30, 31]. However, in their previous research, they did not find a significant association between MP use and self-reported symptoms [29]. We also demonstrated that the OR of inattention increased with the duration of time spent on entertainment on the MP per day. A longitudinal study also reported a similar time-dependent association between playing games on a mobile phone and attention disorder [10]. Attention deficit was associated with a weaker function and structure of prefrontal cortex circuits [32]. Moreover, Aalto et al. revealed an increase in regional cerebral blood flow more distantly in the prefrontal cortex while a mobile phone was in operation placed beside the subject's head [33]; this could be a reason for the increase in inattention. Because the time spent on making calls per day was not significantly associated with inattention, the effect of the MP on attentiveness might not be directly from the MP electromagnetic exposure but from the psychological impact. Inattention was found to be related to depression, anxiety, stress [34] and youth violence [35] in previous studies. A relationship between playing computer games [27, 36], internet addiction [37, 38] and inattention has also been described. Moreover, superficial way to use internet or the contents of the games could also cause problems with concentrating. The time spent on games might also exacerbate ADHD symptoms, if not directly then through the loss of time spent on more developmentally challenging tasks [7]. In our present study, the strongest association between inattention and time spent on entertainment on the MP was among participants who spent more than 60 minutes per day playing on their MP. This is the first study so far to determine a time period which is correlated with inattention. Therefore, our results may provide a reference for further research into the relationship between MP use and inattention.

Hanging a MP in front of the chest and putting a MP into trouser pockets were both significantly associated with inattention. However, as only a small group of students (4.34%) hang their MP in front of their chest, the association with inattention may not be generalizable. Our study also showed that putting MP into trouser pockets was likely to increase inattention in MP users. The side-pocket was the favored location for cell phones and students often send texts from inside a pocket. As the exposure increases rapidly in the near field, the safety limits may be exceeded when the phone makes contact with the base station and the penetration of the energy may increase with proximity if MP is in a pocket next to the carrier’s body [39]. The poorer attention in those carrying the MP in a pocket might be due to students using MP while it was in the pocket. As our study found that adolescents who kept their MP turned off at night had significantly less inattention, we propose that parents should power off adolescents' MP while they sleep.

This large-scale cross-sectional study is the first to investigate the association between exposure to MP and inattention in Chinese adolescents. Because the questionnaire survey was proceeded during class time, there was a high response rate among the adolescents. Detailed MP usage and inattention were collected to fully explore the association. Furthermore, to exclude confounding factors, we adjusted the results for sex, age, urban/rural residence and whether living close to mobile base stations.

However, in this study, there may have been some exposure misclassification [40] due to the data being self-reported. Another limitation was that the cross-sectional study design could not adequately reveal the causality of the factors [41]. On the other hand, as the protection of privacy for parents, schools only allowed us to collected the basic information of adolescents, such as sex, age, address, etc. Therefore, the confounding factors in this study were insufficient.

Conclusions

In general, the results in the present study indicated that MP ownership, the time spent on entertainment on the MP, the position of the MP during the day and the mode of the MP at night were all significantly associated with inattention in Chinese adolescents. We suggest that parents should set a maximum of 60 minutes daily playing by adolescents’ on a MP and require them to turn it off when they sleep.

Abbreviations

MP: 

Mobile phone

WHO: 

World Health Organization

ADHD: 

Attention deficit/Hyperactivity disorder

OR: 

Odds ratio

CI: 

Confidence interval

SD: 

Standard deviation.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Basic Research Program of China (National 973 Program; Grant No. 2011CB503700). We would like to thank Dr. Xiangyu Ma (Department of Epidemiology, Third Military Medical University) for discussion on questionnaire design and Dr. Xiaolu Zeng (Department of Epidemiology, Third Military Medical University), Dr. Dihui Ma (Department of Health Statistics, Third Military Medical University) for consultation on statistic analysis. We would also like to thank Yonghui Lu, Tao Zhang, Ling Mao, Gang Zhu for helping in distribution and collection of questionnaires and all of the participants and teachers for their participation.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Occupational Health, Key Laboratory of Medical Protection for Electromagnetic Radiation, Ministry of Education, Third Military Medical University
(2)
Suining Experimental High School
(3)
Dongchan Middle School

References

  1. Jacobs K, Hudak S, McGiffert J: Computer-related posture and musculoskeletal discomfort in middle school students. Work. 2009, 32: 275-283.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Jiang XX, Hardy LL, Ding D, Baur LA, Shi HJ: Recreational screen-time among Chinese adolescents: a cross-sectional study. J Epidemiol. 2014, 24 (5): 397-403. 10.2188/jea.JE20140006.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Van Deventer E, van Rongen E, Saunders R: WHO research agenda for radiofrequency fields. Bioelectromagnetics. 2011, 32: 417-421. 10.1002/bem.20660.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. China Internet Network Information Center: China Internet network development state statistic report. China Internet Network Development State Statistic Report 33rd. 2014, Beijing: CINICGoogle Scholar
  5. Van Egmond-Fröhlich AW, Weghuber D, De Zwaan M: Association of symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder with physical activity, media time, and food intake in children and adolescents. PLoS One. 2012, 7 (11): e49781-10.1371/journal.pone.0049781.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Mazurek MO, Engelhardt CR: Video game use in boys with autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, or typical development. Pediatrics. 2013, 132 (2): 260-266. 10.1542/peds.2012-3956.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Weiss MD, Baer S, Allan BA, Saran K, Schibuk H: The screens culture: impact on ADHD. Atten Defic Hyperact Disord. 2011, 3 (4): 327-334. 10.1007/s12402-011-0065-z.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Divan HA, Divan HA, Obel C, Olsen J: Prenatal and postnatal exposure to cell phone use and behavioral problems in children. Epidemiology. 2008, 19 (4): 523-529. 10.1097/EDE.0b013e318175dd47.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Van Rongen E, Roubos EW, Van Aernsbergen LM, Brussaard G, Havenaar J, Koops FB, Van Leeuwen FE, Leonhard HK, Van Rhoon GC, Swaen GM, Van de Weerdt RH, Zwamborn AP: Mobile phones and children: is precaution warranted?. Bioelectromagnetics. 2004, 25: 142-144. 10.1002/bem.10200.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Byun YH, Ha M, Kwon HJ, Hong YC, Leem JH, Sakong J, Kim SY, Lee CG, Kang D, Choi HD, Kim N: Mobile phone use, blood lead levels, and attention deficit hyperactivity symptoms in children: a longitudinal study. PLoS One. 2013, 8 (3): e59742-10.1371/journal.pone.0059742.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Zajdel R, Zajdel J, Zwolińska A, Smigielski J, Beling P, Cegliński T, Nowak D: The sound of a mobile phone ringing affects the complex reaction time of its owner. Arch Med Sci. 2012, 8 (5): 892-898.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Carskadon MA: Sleep's effects on cognition and learning in adolescents. Prog Brain Res. 2011, 190: 137-143.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Milde-Busch A, Boneberger A, Heinrich S, Thomas S, Kühnlein A, Radon K, Straube A, von Kries R: Higher prevalence of psychopathological symptoms in adolescents with headache: a population-based cross-sectional study. Headache. 2010, 50 (5): 738-748. 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2009.01605.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Sahin S, Ozdemir K, Unsal A, Temiz N: Evaluation of mobile phone addiction level and sleep quality in university students. Pak J Med Sci. 2013, 29 (4): 913-918.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Munezawa T, Kaneita Y, Osaki Y, Kanda H, Minowa M, Suzuki K, Higuchi S, Mori J, Yamamoto R, Ohida T: The association between use of mobile phones after lights out and sleep disturbances among Japanese adolescents: a nationwide cross-sectional survey. Sleep. 2011, 34 (8): 1013-1020.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Sudan M, Kheifets L, Arah O, Olsen J, Zeltzer L: Prenatal and postnatal cell phone exposures and headaches in children. Open Pediatr Med J. 2012, 6: 46-52. 10.2174/1874309901206010046.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Chu MK, Song HG, Kim C, Lee BC: Clinical features of headache associated with mobile phone use: a cross-sectional study in university students. BMC Neurol. 2011, 11: 115-10.1186/1471-2377-11-115.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Childress AC, Berry SA: Pharmacotherapy of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in adolescents. Drugs. 2012, 72 (3): 309-325. 10.2165/11599580-000000000-00000.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Breslau J, Miller E, Joanie Chung WJ, Schweitzer JB: Childhood and adolescent onset psychiatric disorders, substance use, and failure to graduate high school on time. J Psychiatr Res. 2011, 45 (3): 295-301. 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.06.014.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Wallace D, Eltiti S, Ridgewell A, Garner K, Russo R, Sepulveda F, Walker S, Quinlan T, Dudley S, Maung S, Deeble R, Fox E: Cognitive and physiological responses in humans exposed to a TETRA base station signal in relation to perceived electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Bioelectromagnetics. 2012, 33 (1): 23-39. 10.1002/bem.20681.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Schmid MR, Loughran SP, Regel SJ, Murbach M, Bratic Grunauer A, Rusterholz T, Bersagliere A, Kuster N, Achermann P: Sleep EEG alterations: effects of different pulse-modulated radio frequency electromagnetic fields. J Sleep Res. 2012, 21 (1): 50-58. 10.1111/j.1365-2869.2011.00918.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee TM, Lam PK, Yee LT, Chan CC: The effect of the duration of exposure to the electromagnetic field emitted by mobile phones on human attention. Neuroreport. 2003, 14 (10): 1361-1364.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Edelstyn N, Oldershaw A: The acute effects of exposure to the electromagnetic field emitted by mobile phones on human attention. Neuroreport. 2002, 13 (1): 119-121. 10.1097/00001756-200201210-00028.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee TM, Ho SM, Tsang LY, Yang SH, Li LS, Chan CC, Yang SY: Effect on human attention of exposure to the electromagnetic field emitted by mobile phones. Neuroreport. 2001, 12 (4): 729-731. 10.1097/00001756-200103260-00023.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 2000, Washington: APA, 4Google Scholar
  26. Chaste P, Clement N, Botros HG, Guillaume JL, Konyukh M, Pagan C, Scheid I, Nygren G, Anckarsäter H, Rastam M, Ståhlberg O, Gillberg IC, Melke J, Delorme R, Leblond C, Toro R, Huguet G, Fauchereau F, Durand C, Boudarene L, Serrano E, Lemière N, Launay JM, Leboyer M, Jockers R, Gillberg C, Bourgeron T: Genetic variations of the melatonin pathway in patients with attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorders. J Pineal Res. 2011, 51 (4): 394-399. 10.1111/j.1600-079X.2011.00902.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Tahiroglu AY, Celik GG, Avci A, Seydaoglu G, Uzel M, Altunbas H: Short- term effects of playing computer games on attention. J Att Dis. 2010, 13 (6): 668-676. 10.1177/1087054709347205.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Costello EJ, Mustillo S, Erkanli A, Keeler G, Angold A: Prevalence and development of psychiatric disorders in childhood and adolescence. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003, 60 (8): 837-844. 10.1001/archpsyc.60.8.837.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Mortazavi SM, Ahmadi J, Shariati M: Prevalence of subjective poor health symptoms associated with exposure to electromagnetic fields among university students. Bioelectromagnetics. 2007, 28: 326-330. 10.1002/bem.20305.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Mortazavi SM, Mahbudi A, Atefi M, Bagheri S, Bahaedini N, Besharati A: An old issue and a new look: electromagnetic hypersensitivity caused by radiations emitted by GSM mobile phones. Technol Health Care. 2011, 19: 435-443.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Mortazavi SM, Atefi M, Kholghi F: The pattern of mobile phone use and prevalence of self-reported symptoms in elementary and junior high school students in Shiraz. Iran Iran J Med Sci. 2011, 36 (2): 96-103.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Arnsten AF: The emerging neurobiology of attention deficit hyperactvty disorder: the key role of the prefrontal association cortex. J Pediatr. 2009, 154 (5): I-S43.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Aalto S, Haarala C, Brück A, Sipilä H, Hämäläinen H, Rinne JO: Mobile phone affects cerebral blood flow in humans. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2006, 26 (7): 885-890. 10.1038/sj.jcbfm.9600279.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Alexander SJ, Harrison AG: Cognitive responses to stress, depression, and anxiety and their relationship to ADHD symptoms in first year psychology students. J Atten Disord. 2013, 17 (1): 29-37. 10.1177/1087054711413071.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Massetti GM, Vivolo AM, Brookmeyer K, Degue S, Holland KM, Holt MK, Matjasko JL: Preventing youth violence perpetration among girls. J Womens Health. 2011, 20 (10): 1415-1428. 10.1089/jwh.2011.3057.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Chan P, Rabinowitz T: A cross-sectional analysis of video games and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms in adolescents. Ann Gen Psychiatry. 2006, 5: 16-10.1186/1744-859X-5-16.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Ozturk FO, Ekinci M, Ozturk O, Canan F: The relationship of affective temperament and emotional-behavioral difficulties to internet addiction in Turkish teenagers. ISRN Psychiatry. 2013, 961734-doi: 10.1155/2013/961734. Print 2013Google Scholar
  38. Yen JY, Yen CF, Chen CS, Tang TC, Ko CH: The association between adult ADHD symptoms and internet addiction among college students: the gender difference. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2009, 12 (2): 187-191. 10.1089/cpb.2008.0113.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Redmayne M, Smith A, Abramson M: Adolescent in-school cellphone habits: a census of rules, survey of their effectiveness, and fertility implications. Reprod Toxicol. 2011, 32 (3): 354-359. 10.1016/j.reprotox.2011.08.006.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Schuz J, Johansen C: A comparison of self-reported cellular telephone use with subscriber data: agreement between the two methods and implications for risk estimation. Bioelectromagnetics. 2007, 28: 130-136. 10.1002/bem.20297.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhi S, Guoying D, Jipeng L, Yangyang L, Yongxing Z, Zhao Q: Correlational analysis of neck/shoulder pain and low back pain with the use of digital products, physical activity and psychological status among adolescents in Shanghai. PLoS One. 2013, 8 (10): e78109-10.1371/journal.pone.0078109.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/1022/prepub

Copyright

© Zheng et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement