Up to a quarter of children and young people are using their phones in a way considered "problematic", according to new research released today.
Young women aged between 17 and 19 years old are the most likely to have issues.
Researchers at King's College London reviewed 41 studies published between 2011 and late 2017, for a total of around 41,870 people.
It found an average of 23 per cent of children and young people were showing "problematic smartphone usage".
This is behaviour with features of addiction that's been linked to smartphones, including feeling panicky or upset when the phone isn't there and struggling to control the amount of time spent on the phone.
"By looking at an 'addicted' pattern of behaviour towards smartphones we have established correlations between this type of dysfunctional behaviour and poorer mental health outcome," co-senior author Dr Ben Carter says.
Kathryn Dalziel says you should only use your cellphone in a meeting when conducting business.
But it doesn't mean households should ban the phone immediately.
"We don't know whether it is the smartphone itself that can be addictive or the apps that people use," co-senior author Dr Nicola Kalk says.
"Smartphones are here to stay and there is a need to understand the prevalence of problematic smartphone usage.
"Nevertheless, there is a need for public awareness around smartphone use in children and young people, and parents should be aware of how much time their children spend on their phones."
However, the research is facing some criticism from another expert.
"I myself am cautious to draw these conclusions on the basis of the evidence provided," University of Cambridge's Dr Amy Orben says, who works in the Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit.
She says she has "multiple concerns" about the review's methodology and inference.
Seven Sharp goes in search of drivers checking their phones in the car, even though it’s been illegal for over six years.
"The review itself highlights that all studies were of poor or moderate quality, with a high risk of bias, meaning that they are not a robust basis for wide-reaching conclusions.
"As a colleague once put it - bad ingredients make bad soup."
The review's data would have missed newer research published in the last few years, while the search terms used may have led to a "biased sample" of studies, Dr Orben says.
The research was published in BMC Psychiatry today.
SHARE ME