Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T15:22:54.500Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Do Chronotypes Influence Problematic Mobile Phone Use and Sleep Quality Among the Doctors? – a Cross-Sectional Study From India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2022

Prathyusha Gopalakrishnan
Affiliation:
Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences, Pondicherry, India.
Manjula Simiyon*
Affiliation:
Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, Wrexham, United Kingdom
Manikandan Mani
Affiliation:
Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences, Pondicherry, India.
Pradeep Thilakan
Affiliation:
Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences, Pondicherry, India.
*
*Presenting author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

This study aimed to determine the prevalence of problematic mobile phone use and its association with the chronotypes among the doctors of a medical college hospital in Puducherry, India. It also aimed to assess the feasibility of the University of Rochester Modified CAGE Questionnaire as a brief screening tool for problematic mobile phone use.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted at a tertiary care teaching hospital in South India. After obtaining the Institutional ethics committee approval, doctors including consultants, higher trainees, core-trainees, and junior doctors working in various departments were approached and requested to participate in the study. Those who agreed were provided with the participant information sheet and written informed consent was obtained. Part-A of the questionnaire contained requests for personal and professional details and part B had the following questionnaires to assess problematic mobile phone use, chronotypes, phantom ringing and vibration and, sleep quality.

  • Problematic use of mobile phone scale (PUMP)

  • Reduced Morningness Eveningness Questionnaire (r MEQ)

  • Questionnaire for Phantom ringing and Phantom vibration

  • The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI)

  • University of Rochester Modified CAGE Questionnaire

  • Data were analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Nonparametric tests were used as the data were skewed. The data were summarized by frequencies and percentages for categorical variables and median and interquartile range for continuous variables. The chi-square test was used to find the association between two categorical variables. Kruskal Wallis test was used to compare the chronotype with the continuous variables such as CAGE total, PUMP, and PSQ score. Correlation between different continuous variables was studied by using Spearman rank correlations. Kappa statistics were used to evaluate the concordance between PUMP and the University of Rochester Modified CAGE questionnaire.

Results

Neither type (NT) was the most common chronotype (41.5%), followed by morning type (38%) and evening type (20%). Eight (5.6%) doctors had problematic mobile phone use, and 38(26.8%) had poor sleep quality. Evening chronotype (p-value- 0.002), being a female (p-value- 0.014), working in a clinical department (p-value 0.017) and experiencing phantom ringing (p-value- 0.001) had significant association with higher PUMP score. Even though females had a higher median PUMP score, problematic mobile phone use was more among males. University of Rochester Modified CAGE Questionnaire had a sensitivity of 81.73% (73–88.6%), and a specificity of 28.95% (15.4–45.9%).

Conclusion

Doctors should be aware of their mobile phone usage. This study has reiterated the predilection evening chronotype has for behavioral addictions and doctors of evening type should be extra cautious.

Type
Research
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.