Neck pain associated with smartphone usage among university students

Mikhled Falah Maayah; Zakariya H Nawasreh; Riziq Allah M Gaowgzeh; Ziyad Neamatallah; Saad S Alfawaz; Umar M Alabasi

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0285451

. 2023 Jun 23;18(6):e0285451. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285451

Neck pain associated with smartphone usage among university students

Mikhled Falah Maayah ^1,^2,^*, Zakariya H Nawasreh ¹, Riziq Allah M Gaowgzeh ³, Ziyad Neamatallah ³, Saad S Alfawaz ³, Umar M Alabasi ³

Editor: Sıdıka Bulduk⁴

PMCID: PMC10289365 PMID: 37352232

Abstract

Objective

Neck and shoulder pain has been linked to prolonged periods of flexed neck posture. However, the influences of factors related to individuals’ characteristics and the time duration and position of using smartphones on the severity and duration of neck and shoulder pain among university students are not well studied. The aim of this study was to identify factors related to individual demographics, the history of neck pain, and the time duration and positions of using the smartphone that could be associated with neck pain severity and duration and to determine the influence of these factors on neck pain severity and duration among university students.

Subjects and methods

Results

Students’ gender, time spent on using their phones, time spent on devices for studying, and having a history of neck or shoulder pain were significant predictors of neck pain duration in the univariate model (p≤0.018). In the multivariate model, both having a history of neck or shoulder pain (95%CI: -2.357 to -1.268, p<0.001) and the hand-side used for writing (95%CI: 0.254–0.512, p<0.001) were significant predictors of neck pain severity, and they both explained 8.4% of its variance. A previous history of neck and shoulder pain, as well as time spent studying on devices, were predictors of the duration of neck pain. According to a study by researchers at Cardiff University, the hand side used for writing on smart devices was also a good predictor of the severity of neck pain. A history of neck or shoulder pain (95% CI: 0.567–0.738, p = <0.001) and the number of hours spent on the device for studying (95% CI: 0.254–0.512, p<0.001) were significant predictors of neck and shoulder pain duration, and they both explained 8.4% of its variance. While having a history of neck or shoulder pain (95% CI: 0.639–0.748, p<0.001) and the hand-side used for writing (95% CI: -1.18 - -0.081, p = 0.025) were significant predictors of neck and shoulder pain severity, they explained 11.3% of its variance.

Conclusions

The results of this study may be utilized to pinpoint smartphone usage factors associated with neck and shoulder pain severity and duration. Further, the findings of this study might help to develop preventive strategies to lower the impacts of these factors on the development of neck and shoulder pain severity and duration among university students.

Introduction

Smartphones are now the most common portable electronic device used in the world [1–4]. In the current digital world, the use of smartphone technologies and applications has increased rapidly among university students [5–7]. This could be attributed to the fact that smartphone provide multifunctional ability to implement several functions such as information, communication, online learning, and enjoyment [8]. In recent studies on the prevalence of smartphone use, university students scored higher than any other age groups. As a result, a high significant proportion of musculoskeletal disorders, particularly in the neck, have been documented among university students [4,5]. In 2019, the age-standardized prevalence rate of neck pain was 27.0 per 1000 people, making it one of the most frequent musculoskeletal illnesses [9].

Saudi Arabia has become a more prosperous and educated community in recent years [10]. Saudis are now among the world’s most devoted smartphone users. Many Saudis associate smartphone use with a more modern way of life [10]. Over 1.7 million students are currently enrolled in Saudi colleges and universities [11]. According to studies from two different Saudi universities, almost all university students owned a smartphone [12], and in 2016, 95% of university students used smartphones to access social media networks [13]. Following the coronavirus pandemic, most academic institutions worldwide, including Saudi Arabia, adapted either the online or the hybrid (in person and online) teaching methods for academic courses, which in turn increased the students’ demand for using the smart devices including the smartphones [14,15].

Neck pain has become a prominent health problem in recent decades, with significant socioeconomic consequences for individuals, families, communities, and the healthcare system [2,16]. It was reported that between 8.2% and 90% of musculoskeletal pain in different body parts was due to the use of smartphones [17]. In Canada, 84% of students who use smartphones experienced musculoskeletal pain, with the neck being the most reported body part to experience pain [18]. In Saudi Arabia, neck and upper extremity pain were reported to account for 71% of patients with musculoskeletal pain, which is considered relatively higher than those reported for other countries, including Malaysia, Thailand, Nigeria, and Sudan [19].

Having musculoskeletal pain, including pain in the neck and upper extremities, may affect individuals’ work productivity, functional performance, and quality of life. Further, it may increase the demand for medical services and cause a substantial burden due to the cost of medical treatment. For students, experiencing musculoskeletal pain may impact their educational achievement and truancy from classes [20].

While using smart phones, there is a lack of neck and upper-limb support, combined with repeated finger movements for testing, which can result in a high static muscle load, especially when using only one hand [21–24]. Furthermore, forward head position while using smart phones has been identified as a risk factor for musculoskeletal pain, increasing tension on cervical structures and potentially initiating degeneration and tearing of the neck structures. A history of previous neck and shoulder pain may also increase the likelihood of developing recurrent neck pain and the severity of the condition. While there is an association between using an electronic devices (i.e., a smartphone) and musculoskeletal symptoms including neck pain among collegiate students, there is limited evidence regarding the influence of the students’ demographics (sex and age), having an episode of previous neck pain, and various aspects of smartphone exposures including the smartphone time duration spent on using the phone, the number of typed massages, number of hands used to hold the device, the head positions of the smartphone, and associated musculoskeletal neck and shoulder pain duration and severity among university students. The aim of this study was to identify factors related to individual demographics, the history of neck pain, and the time duration and positions of using the smartphone that could be associated with neck pain severity and duration and to determine the influence of these factors on neck pain severity and duration among university students.

Subjects and methods

Data collection and study design

A cross-sectional study was conducted on students from King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, using a self-administered online questionnaire. Data was collected between March 10th, 2020, and October 18th, 2020, with 867 questionnaires filled out using Google Forms as a web-based questionnaire. Questionnaires were distributed to students by posting them in their batch groups on Facebook, an online social media and social networking service. Students from five healthcare faculties were included: the faculties of medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, nursing, and medical rehabilitation sciences. Furthermore, participants indicated whether they had experienced neck and shoulder pain related to the usage of a smart phone, and they rated the severity of the pain using the NRS-11 and the duration of the experienced pain. Univariate and multivariate linear regression models were used to identify the best fit model for neck and shoulder pain.

Questionnaire design

First, general demographics, including age, gender, and faculty, were studied. Then the general conditions of mobile phone use, including handedness, frequency of mobile phone use, duration, and position during use, were studied. Students’ experience of neck and shoulder pain associated with mobile phone use, including the severity of the pain using the NRS-11, was evaluated. Students were asked to rate their pain on a scale from 0 to 10, where zero represents "no pain at all" and 10 represents "the worst pain they have ever experienced," using whole numbers [25]. The English version of the survey was translated into Arabic using back translation for the Arabic sample (Kristine Bandgaard 2019). Finally, the measures students take to relieve their pain, including changing their position, decreasing their mobile phone use, using analgesics, and seeking medical care, were assessed.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The study sample included students age 18 or older from the aforementioned five health care faculties, regardless of their age, gender, or handedness. Students who have been regularly using smartphones were included in this study. Students were excluded from the study if they had any of the following chronic medical conditions: musculoskeletal disorders or a prior surgery in the neck, shoulder, or upper limb.

Ethical approval

The study protocal was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) (date of approval: March 2, 2020) of the faculty of medical rehabilitation sciences at King Abdulaziz University. A written informed consent was obtained on the first page of the study’s questionnaire, which was written in Arabic and English (the official language in Saudi Arabia is Arabic). The consent form explained the aims of the study and emphasized the confidentiality of the filled-out information. Participants were able to withdraw from the questionnaire at any point. No identifying information was obtained through the questionnaire, and all collected data were solely used for statistical analysis.

Statistical analysis

The data was analyzed and described using percentages and frequencies. Statistical analysis was analyzed by using Statistical Package for Social Sciences Version 22 (SPSS) for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Univariate linear regression model was used to evaluate whether variables (independent variables) related to the conditions of mobile phone use (handedness, frequency of mobile phone use, duration, number of texts they send per day, and position during which they use the mobile phone, duration of using the phone for studying) and having a history of neck or shoulder pain can predict either the neck and shoulder pain duration in hours and the neck and shoulder pain severity (dependent variable) among collegiate students. Significant univariate predictors were then entered into the multivariate linear regression model with stepwise selection used to identify the best fit model for neck and shoulder pain severity and duration among university students (R2: R square, OR: odds ratios, and 95% confidence interval (95% CI)). P <0.05 was used to determine statistical significance. G*Power software v3.1.0 (Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany) was used to determine the sample size for this study. The priori power analysis suggested that the minimum calculated sample size was 643 participants with a confidence level of 99%, a margin of error of 5%, and a response distribution of 50%. However, considering potential attrition and to improve the accuracy of the predictor model, an additional 224 partpicipants were included.

Results

Demographics

Overall, the current study involved 867 (86.7%) university students. The mean age of study participants was 21±2.95. There were 501 males (57.8%) and 366 females among the participants (42.2%) (Fig 1).

Fig 1 — Overall, the current study involved 867 (86.7%) university students. There were 501 males (57.8%) and 366 females among the participants (42.2%).

Most of the participating university students were from the faculty of medicine (24.80%), followed by the faculty of pharmacy, (21.22%), and the faculty of dentistry (19.84%), whereas the lowest students were from the faculty of rehabilitation (17.30%), followed by the faculty of nursing (16.84%), as shown in Fig 2.

Fig 2 — According to the figure, the majority of participating university students were from the faculty of medicine (24.80%), followed by the faculty of pharmacy (21.22%), and the faculty of dentistry (19.84%), with the lowest students coming from the faculty of rehabilitation (17.30%) and nursing (16.84%).

Pattern of mobile phone use

In Table 1, among all the participants, 91.5% were right-handed dominant, and only 8.5% were left-handed dominant. The average daily frequency of smartphone use in days/week was 798 (92.0%) for all days, but the lowest was 20 (2.3%) for 1–2 days. The overall average of hours per day spent on smartphones revealed a maximum percentage of 465 (53.63%) equal to or greater than 4 hours and the lowest percentage of 402 (46.37%) less than 4 hours. When considering the purpose of using smartphones, it was found that the highest percentage, 37.14%, was for study purposes, while the lowest percentage, 1.15%, was for studying and playing games.

Table 1. Frequencies and percentages measures for mobile phone use.

Variable	Categories	Frequency (N)	Percent (%)
Handedness	Left-Handed	74	8.54
Handedness	Right-Handed	793	91.46
The average frequency of mobile phone use (days per week)	1–2 Days	20	2.31
	3–4 days	49	5.65
	All days	798	92.04
The average time spent using a mobile phone (Hour)	1–2	71	8.2
	3–4	201	23.2
	4–5	130	15.0
	6–7	229	26.4
	8–9	60	6.9
	10–12	92	10.6
	≥13	84	9.7
Purpose of use	Playing Games	12	1.39
	Social Media	177	20.42
	Studying	322	37.14
	Studying and Playing Games	10	1.15
	Studying and social media	253	29.18
	Studying and Watching Videos	46	5.31
	Texting	14	1.61
	Watching Videos	14	1.61
	Working	19	2.19
Hours spent on the study tool (Hour)	0	8	0.92
	1–2	661	76.24
	3–4	132	15.22
	5–6	45	5.19
	≥7	21	2.43
Text messages sent per day	1–5	260	29. 99
	6–10	157	18.11
	12–15	32	3.69
	16–20	101	11.65
	≥22	317	36.56
Single Handed or both handed	One hand	550	63.44
Single Handed or both handed	Both hands	317	36.56
The position adopted while in use	Sitting position	533	61.48
	Standing position	21	2.42
	Walking position	21	2.42
	Supine position (Lying down)	292	33.68
Experience neck or shoulder pain before	No	238	27.45
Experience neck or shoulder pain before	Yes	629	72.55
Pain site	Neck	420	48.44
	Right shoulder	139	16.03
	Left shoulder	57	6.57
	I do not have pain	251	28.95

Open in a new tab

For test massages sent per day, the highest percentage was for those who sent 22 or more test massages: 317 (36.56%), followed by 1–5 messages with 260 (29.99%), and the lowest percentages of 12–15 with 32 (3.69%). The percentage of mobile phone use in a single or both hands showed that the single hand was higher (63.44%) than using it with both hands (36.56%). The most common position when using a cell phone was sitting (61.48%), then supine lying (33.68%), and finally standing and walking (both 4.84%) (Table 1).

In Table 1, there were 72.55% of the students who reported having neck or shoulder pain. In addition, the highest site of pain was in the neck at 48.44%, followed by the right shoulder at 16.03%, and then the left shoulder at 6.57%. As for the pain duration, the highest percentage was found to be 233 (26.87%) for one hour, while the lowest was 21 (2.42%) for five hours (Fig 3). Also, the most common time of pain was 279 (32.18%) at night, while the lowest percentage was 57 (6.57%) in the afternoon (Fig 4). The results of the current study showed that 292 (33.68%) had a pain intensity of less than 4/10 and 322 (37.2%) had a pain intensity higher than 4/10, whereas 253 (29.18%) reported no pain at all (Fig 5).

Fig 3 — As for the pain duration in this figure, the highest percentage was found to be 233 (26.87%) for one hour, while the lowest was 21 (2.42%) for five hours.

Fig 4 — For the pain duration shown in this figure, the most common time of pain was 279 (32.18%) at night, while the lowest percentage was 57 (6.57%) in the afternoon.

Fig 5 — In this figure, the results of the current study show that 292 (33.68%) had a pain intensity of less than 4/10 and 322 (37.2%) had a pain intensity higher than 4/10, whereas 253 (29.18%) reported no pain at all.

In Fig 6, the frequency and percentages in the results of the study revealed that the highest pain frequency in days per week was seen at 51 (5.88), followed by four days at 55 (6.33), and five days at 36 (4.15). In contrast, the lowest pain frequency per week is on day 198 (22.84), followed by 2 days 123 (14.19), and 3 days 121 (13.96).

In Table 2, the percentage of students who used pain-reducing analgesia was highest for No 703 (81.08%), and lowest for Yes 164 (18.92%). The percentage of students with varying degrees of pain severity was 796 (91.8%), "I did not seek medical attention for myself," but 56 (6.5%) Yes, I’ve visited the clinic, followed by 15 (1.7%) who visited the emergency department in clinics (Table 2). However, the number of students who changed position the most frequently after experiencing pain while using the mobile phone showed the percentage of "yes" at 470 (54.2%) and the "no" showed 255 (29.4%) for students who did not change their position (Table 2).

Table 2. Shows the frequency and percentages of people who use analgesics and seek medical care for neck pain.

Variable	Categories	Frequency (N)	Percent (%)
Analgesia used to decrease pain	No	703	81.08
Analgesia used to decrease pain	Yes	164	18.92
Types of Analgesic agents used	I did not take any medications	652	75.2
	Alternatives to Analgesics: Heat	10	1.2
	Alternatives to Analgesics: Ice	2	0.2
	Alternatives to Analgesics: Massage	28	3.2
	Alternatives to Analgesics: Relaxation techniques	4	0.5
	Alternatives to Analgesics: Rest	38	4.4
	Neurological Analgesia (gabapentin, amitriptyline etc)	3	0.3
	Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs (ibuprofen, Panadol naproxen, and Aspirant)	130	15.0
The frequency of the use of analgesics agents (In Day per week)	0	690	79.6
	1	100	11.5
	2	32	3.7
	3	31	3,6
	4	2	0.2
	5	5	0.6
	6	7	0.8
Seeking medical care to relieve pain	No	796	91.8
	Yes, I’ve visited the Clinic	56	6,5
	Yes, I’ve visited the Emergency Department	15	1.7
Did You Decrease the use of the mobile phone after experiencing pain	I do not have pain	143	16.5
	No	528	60.9
	Yes	196	22.61
Change the most frequent position while using a mobile phone after experiencing this pain	I do not have pain	142	16.4
	No	255	29.4
	Yes	470	54.2
Rating the pain intensity decreased by using a pain intensity scale of 10	1∕10	457	53.9
	2∕10	261	30.1
	3∕10	139	15
Do you think that this pain was related to the use of your mobile phone?	I do not have pain, and I Do not believe that this type of pain is related to mobile phones use.	37	4.3
	I do not have pain, but I believe that this type of pain is related to mobile phones use	126	14.5
	No	212	24.5
	Yes	492	56.7

Open in a new tab

In Fig 7, the findings of the current study are shown to be that 292 (33.7%) of the participants had mild pain, 233 (26.9%) had moderate pain, and 89 (10.3%) had severe pain.

Students gender, average time spent using the phone, time spent on the device for studying, and having a history of neck and shoulder pain were significant predictors of neck and shoulder pain duration in the univariate model (p≤0.018, Table 3).

Table 3. Univariate linear regression for predictor measures of neck and shoulder pain duration in hours among universities students.

	β coefficients	R²	95%CI	P-value
Gender (Male, Female^*)	0.616	0.6%	0.105–1.128	0.018
Age (year)	-0.045	0.1%	-0.137–0.047	0.339
Which hand do you use for writing? (Right ^* , left)	-0.401	0.1%	-1.308–0.506	0.386
Average frequency for your use of your mobile device (in days per week)	0.104	1%	-0.109–0.318	0.338
Average time do you spend using your mobile device? (in hours per day)	0.085	1.0%	0.029–0.142	0.003
How many Hours do you spend on your device for studying? (hours)	0.399	3.9%	0.267–0.531	0.001
How many text messages do you send per day?	0.002	0.2%	-0.001–0.005	0.221
Do you hold your mobile in one hand or both hands when you use it (One hand, two hands^*)	0.373	0.2%	-0.153–0.899	0.164
What is your most frequent position when you use your mobile device?	-0.089	0.01%	-0.269–0.092	0.335
Did you experience neck or shoulder pain before? (Yes, No^*)	-0.435	4.8%	0.567–0.738	0.001

Open in a new tab

Boldfaced P values indicate statistical significance; B: B coefficient, CI: Confidence interval; SD: Standard Deviation; * Reference group for each predictor.

In the multivariate model, only having a history of neck or shoulder pain (95% CI: 0.567–0.738, p≤0.001) and the number of hours spent on the device for studying (95% CI: 0.254–0.512, p<0.001) were significant predictors of neck and shoulder pain duration, and they both explained 8.4% of its variance (Table 4).

Table 4. Multivariate linear regression for predictor measures of neck and shoulder pain duration in hours among universities students.

	β coefficients	R²	95%CI	P-value
*Did you experience neck or shoulder pain before (Yes, No)**	-0.435	8.4%	0.567–0.738	<0.001
How many hours do you spend on your device for studying?	0.383	8.4%	0.254–0.512	<0.001

Open in a new tab

In the univariate model, all hand sides used for writing text messages, time spent using a mobile device, and having a history of neck or shoulder pain were significant predictors of neck and shoulder pain severity (p = 0.018) (Table 5). However, in the multivariate model, both having a history of neck or shoulder pain (95% CI: 0.639–0.748, p<0.001) and the hand-side used for writing (95%CI: -1.18 - -0.081, p = 0.025) were significant predictors of neck and shoulder pain severity, and they both explained 11.3% of its variance. (Table 6).

Table 5. Univariate linear regression for predictor measures of neck and shoulder pain severity among universities students.

	β coefficients	R²	95%CI	P-value
Gender (Male, Female*)	0.205	0.2%	-0.125–0.535	0.223
Age (year)	0.055	0.4%	-0.004–0.115	0.066
Which hand do you use for writing? (Right*, left)	-0.106	0.5%	-1.77- -0.013	0.045
Average frequency for your use of your mobile device (in days per week)	0.118	0.3%	-0.019–0.255	0.092
Average time (in hours per day) do you spend using your mobile device	0.038	5%	0.001–0.074	0.042
How many Hours do you spend on your device for studying?	0.035	0.1%	-0.051–0.122	0.425
How many text messages do you send per day?	0.001	0.1%	-0.001–0.003	0.281
Do you hold your mobile in one hand or both hands when you use it.	-0.048	0.1%	-0.387–0.290	0.779
What is your most frequent position when you use your mobile device?	-0.089	0.01%	-0.269–0.092	0.335
What is your most frequent position when you use your mobile device?	-0.003	0%	-0.119–0.113	0.955
*Did you experience neck or shoulder pain before (Yes, No)**	-0.369	4.8%	0.639–0.748	0.001

Open in a new tab

Boldfaced P values indicate statistical significance; B: B coefficient; CI: Confidence interval; SD: Standard Deviation; * Reference group for each predictor.

Table 6. Multivariate linear regression for predictor measures of neck and shoulder pain severity in hours among university students.

	β coefficients	R²	95%CI	P-value
Did you experience neck pain or shoulder before (Yes, No)	-0.369	11.3%	0.639–0.748	0.001
*Which hand do you use for writing (right, left)**	-0.630	11.3%	-1.18 - -0.081	0.025

Open in a new tab

Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to identify factors related to individual demographic usage of the smart phone and smartphone exposure that are associating with neck and shoulder pain duration and intensity, and to determine the influence of these factors on neck and shoulder pain duration and intensity among university students. According to the findings of this study, neck and shoulder pain duration is associated with all of student’s sex, time spent on phone in studying, and having a history of neck and shoulder pain. However, the multivariate model revealed that only having a history of neck and shoulder pain, as well as the number of hours spent studying on a device, were significant predictors of the duration of neck pain. The hand-side use for writing on smartphone, time spent on mobile devices, and having a history of neck and shoulder pain were individual predictors of the severity of neck pain. Yet, the multivariate model revealed that only having a history of neck and shoulder pain and the hand side used for writing were significant predictors of the severity of the neck and shoulder pain. The findings of this study may help identify factors associated with neck and shoulder pain duration and severity among academic students. Further, they might help to develop preventive strategies to lower their impacts of these factors on the development of neck pain among university students.

The percentages of neck and shoulder pain in the present study revealed that 72.6% of participants used smartphones. This rate was similar to a previous study that reported that 71.2% of subjects suffered from cervical pain, which was the most common symptom [26]. In the current study, university students who use smartphones for studying recorded a significantly higher percentage than those who use smartphones for other purposes. There is a major difference in gender levels of pain severity among university students. There were 49 (5.7%) females with severe pain, while 40 (4.61%) males had severe pain, which can be referred to as females who use more mobile phones than males.

The findings from the current study showed that the most common timing of pain was at night (32.2%), while it was less frequent in the afternoon (6.6%). In 2014–2015, a survey of 2,367 Saudi University students was conducted [2]. In this survey, the percentages among university students showed that 27.2% reported using their phones for more than 8 hours per day, while 75% reported using them for less than four 4 hours per day [3]. In contrast, Amal et al. [27] conducted a recent study in Saudi Arabia and revealed that 45% of participants were using smartphones, with 35.1% spending 6–9 hours on average. Furthermore, 40.5% used mobile phones with one hand with a slight neck tilt below the horizontal line; 59.1% reported neck or shoulder pain while using devices; and only 2.7% of those experiencing pain used pain relief medications. In the current study, 63.4% of university students used smartphones with one hand, while 23.5% of those with neck pain used medications to relieve their pain. Instead of analgesics, 10.6% of participants used massage, rest, ice, and heat modalities. According to the findings of the current study, university students spend more hours studying (37.14%), which is the highest percentage of the purpose of using mobile tools, while 17.19% spend over 6 hours studying, which is the most common factor that is associated with the neck pain.

The findings of this study revealed that a student’s sex, time spent on a smartphone while studying, and having a history of neck and shoulder pain were associated with the neck and shoulder pain, with having a previous history of pain being the strongest predictor, followed by the number of hours spent on devices while studying, and they explained 4.8% and 3.9% of the variance of the pain duration, respectively. Individuals with a previous history of neck or shoulder pain were more likely to have a longer pain duration than those with no previous episodes of pain, and those who spent more time studying on smart devices were more likely to have a longer neck pain duration. While there are no previous studies that reported on the influence of having a history of neck pain due to the usage of smart phone and the neck pain duration among university students, it was reported that the development of chronic musculoskeletal pain was associated with history of low back pain and high initial pain intensity [28]. It could be that the usage of smart phone has just recently increased in number, which could explain the lack of studies that have reported on the influence of having a history of neck symptoms on develop further episodes of neck and shoulder pain among collegiate students who use their smartphones for education purposes. In a study by Al-Hadidi et al, [29] reported that the duration of mobile phone use had a positive correlation with the duration and severity of neck pain among university students. However, in a meta-analysis that included 9 studies revealed inconclusive findings about the time duration of using smartphone and musculoskeletal pain, yet 6 of the studies included in the meta-analysis indicated an association between the time spent on the smartphone and musculoskeletal pain [29]. The findings of the current study alongside the previous studies do not specify the exact cut-off value of time that associate with developing musculoskeletal pain. Therefore, further studies may be needed to determine the cut-off point for the time of using the smartphone that could lead to the development of musculoskeletal pain to provide recommendation for university students.

The findings of this study revealed that the hand side commonly used for writing on smartphones, time spent on mobile devices, and having a history of neck and shoulder pain were individual predictors of neck and shoulder pain severity. With the time spent using a phone being the strongest predictor, followed by having a previous history of neck or shoulder pain, they explained 5% and 4.8% of the variance of neck pain severity, respectively. However, the multivariate model revealed that only having a history of neck and shoulder pain and the hand side used for writing on a smartphone were significant predictors of the neck and shoulder pain severity and they explained 11.3% of the variance. Individuals with a history of neck or shoulder pain tend to be at higher risk to have severe neck pain than those with no history of neck or shoulder pain, while those who type with their left hand tend to be less likely to have severe neck pain than those who type with their right hand. This indicate that students with previous episode of neck pain are more likely to have a severe neck pain. It can be advocated that having a previous episode of neck or shoulder pain may have caused biomechanical and flexibility changes, proprioceptive deficits, range of motion limitation, muscle spasm or weakness, and degenerative changes in the neck and shoulders that, in turn, may lead to sustain a more severe neck and shoulder pain due to the usage of smartphones. Further, there might be negative impacts of previous episode of neck pain on students, especially in case that students may have not fully recovered or did not receive sufficient treatment to ensure resolving symptoms and impairment of previous episode. Students who type with their right hand are at higher risk of developing severe neck and shoulder pain compared to those who type with their left hand. This may have resulted from the high volume of repetitive movements performed by the right hand. This could be since 91.46% of the sample included in this study are right hand dominant. Therefore, adding long periods of typing on smartphones to their right-hand activity requires placing their upper extremity up while holding their phones so the smartphone is within the range of their vision, which places a high demand on the neck and shoulder muscles. This, in turn, may cause muscle fatigue, and changes in the balance of muscle strength and length that affect the cervical spine and scapula movements and alter their biomechanical loads could result in severe neck and shoulder pain. Further, it could be that those who use their right hand may have less resting time when added to the daily routine activities performed in the right hand. Therefore, students who are right-hand dominant might be advised to minimize the time of using their phone in right hand, and instead used their left hand for typing.

The current study’s findings revealed that the most common handedness employed with a high percentage correlation between neck and pain intensity level was single-handed use, which had mild pain that reached 191 (0.3%). The sitting position had a greater percentage of 59 (0.111%), while the lowest percentage was 2 (0.095%) for (standing and walking positions. The duration of use of smartphone plays a key role in assessing the duration of pain in the neck and shoulders.

The findings of the current study revealed that the student gender was an individual predictor of the neck and shoulder pain duration, with male students (n = 366) (42.2%) were more likely to experience longer neck and shoulder pain than female students due to the usage of smartphone devices. However, it is unknown how students’ sex influences the neck and shoulder pain duration.

These findings of the current study may have clinical implications as they help identify factors related to individual demographics and smartphone usage associated with the duration and severity of neck and shoulder pain. The findings of this study suggest that students with a previous history of neck pain and who spend more time using smartphones are more likely to develop neck pain that lasts for a long time. Therefore, it is recommended that these students may adapt preventive strategies by minimize the time spent using their smartphones. This can be achieved by dividing the time needed for studying on a smart phone into small segments and considering taking frequent rest time to avoid developing neck pain. Further, the findings of this study indicate that students with a history of neck pain and who use one hand to hold the phone are more likely to develop severe neck pain. Therefore, it is recommended that they alternate using their phones between their right and left hands or to use both hands especially when they use their smartphones for long periods of time, such as when studying. To avoid long duration and severe neck and shoulder pain, students may be instructed to adopt an extended neck sitting position, supporting forearms, holding a mobile phone with both hands, and using both thumbs without sustaining a position for an extended period of time [21,22].

The findings of this study could also be used to develop prevention strategies and health promotion initiatives aimed at reducing neck and shoulder pain and addressing the risk of neck disorders associated with smartphone users. With smartphones are becoming increasingly relevant in all aspects of our lives, therefore more focus should be given to educating the public on the impact of long-time usage of smart phone. Further, individuals who use smart phone as part of their education or profession may be instructed on maintaining a healthy sitting positions, use both hands or alternate between hand while holding their phone, and ensue using the phone for short durations with rest interval to monitor the rising incidence of neck and upper extremity pain in our society. University students should understand and be aware of how to appropriately use smartphones and other technological tools. Furthermore, faculties should place more emphasis on raising awareness about the proper usage of smartphones and providing student with studying materials that require using smart phone for short time.

Limitations of the study

Notwithstanding the appreciated data, there are some limitations to this study. Because the study used a cross-sectional design, it found significant associations among the evaluated independent variables. Furthermore, many of the independent variables evaluated are self-reported, which may cause biases. Because study data were gathered through convenience sampling, the study findings cannot be generalized to larger or similar populations. Also, in the current study, researchers did not consider the use of any other electronic devices, such as desktop computers or other study-related devices. It was possible to increase the number of participants; however, due to a lack of time, we were unable to think of more than those chosen for the study.

Conclusions

Students’ sex, time spent on the phone while studying, and having a history of neck and shoulder pain were individual predictors of neck and shoulder pain duration. However, only having a history of neck and shoulder pain and the number of hours spent studying on a device were predictors of the neck and shoulder pain duration in the multivariate model. While hand-side use for writing on a smartphone, time spent on smartphones, and having a history of neck and shoulder pain were individual predictors of the severity of neck and shoulder pain. Yet, only having a history of previous neck and shoulder pain and the hand-side used for writing were predictors of the severity of the neck and shoulder pain in the multivariate model. The findings of this study may help to pinpoint smartphone usage factors associated with neck and shoulder pain severity and duration. Further, the findings of this study might help to develop preventive strategies to lower the impacts of these factors on the development of neck and shoulder pain severity and duration among university students.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the deans of research, the vice dean of scientific research, the heads of departments, and all of the university students who took the time to complete the survey questionnaire.

Data Availability

The data underlying the results presented in the study are available at https://figshare.com/s/ac23748dd94494111712.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

1.Chen B., L.F., Ding S., Ying X., Wang L., Wen Y., Gender differences in factors associated with smartphone addiction: A cross-sectional study among medical college students. BMC Psychiatry. 2017. 17: p. 341. doi: 10.1186/s12888-017-1503-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Fadi Al-Hadidi I.B., Saif Aldeen AlRyalat, Belal Al-Zu’bi, Rasha Bsisu, Mohammad Hamdan, et al., Association between mobile phone use and neck pain in university students: A cross-sectional study using numeric rating scale for evaluation of neck pain. PLoS ONE. 2019. 14: p. 1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Alsalameh A.M.H., M.J.; Alduayji M.A.; Almutham A.A.; Mahmood F.M., Evaluating the relationship between smartphone addiction/overuse and musculoskeletal pain among medical Care. students at Qassim University. Journal of Family Medicine Primary Care. 2019. 8: p. 2953–2959. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Chan L.Y.W., A.; Wang M.H.; Cheung K.; Samartzis D., The prevalence of neck pain and associated risk factors among undergraduate students: A large-scale cross-sectional study. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2020. 76: p. 1029–1034. [Google Scholar]
5.Namwongsa S P.R., Neubert MS, Boucaut R., Factors associated with neck disorders among university student smartphone users. Work [Internet]. 2018. 61(3): p. 367–78. doi: 10.3233/WOR-182819 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Sileshi Ayhualem A.A., Sisay Deme Dabi, Kefale Getie Bogale, Abey Bekele Abebe, Mulugeta Bayisa Chala, Burden of neck pain and associated factors among smart phone user students in University of Gondar Ethiopia. PLOS ONE. 2021: p. 1–15. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256794 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Walankar PP, K.M., Govekar A, Dhanwada A., Musculoskeletal Pain and Risk Factors Associated with Smartphone Use in University Students. Indian Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine [Internet]. 2021. 25(4): p. 220–4. doi: 10.4103/ijoem.ijoem_351_20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Kamaruddin P., Nawi AM., Smartphone usage and pattern on self-reported symptoms among medical students in University Kebangsaan Malaysia during the COVID-19 lockdown. Research square, 2020. [Google Scholar]
9.Kazeminasab S.N., S.A.; Amiri P.; Pourfathi H.; Araj-Khodaei M.; Sullman M.; Kolahi A.; et al., Neck pain: Global epidemiology, trends and risk factors. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2022. 26(23): p. 1–13. doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04957-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Saudi Vision 2030, An Ambitious Vision for an Ambitious Nation. 2022. [Google Scholar]
11.Hakami T., M.M., Najmi H., Adawi A., Hakami R., Areeshi N., et al., Knowledge of and attitude towards epilepsy among university students in Saudi Arabia: Misconceptions of the next generation. Epilepsy and Behavior Reports. 2021. 16: p. 100450. doi: 10.1016/j.ebr.2021.100450 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Alfawareh H.M., J.S., Smartphones Usage Among University Students: Najran University Case. International Journal of academic research. 2014. 6: p. 321–326. [Google Scholar]
13.Alosaimi F.D., A.H., Alshahwan H., Al Mahyijari N., Shaik S.A., Smartphone addiction among university students in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Medical Journal. 2016. 37: p. 675–683. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Abdullah M Alsalameh M.J.H., Alduayji Muath A, Almutham Abdullah A, Mahmood Farid M Evaluating the relationship between smartphone addiction/overuse and musculoskeletal pain among medical students at Qassim University. Journal of Family Medicine Primary Care. 2019. 8: p. 2953–2959. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_665_19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Singh H.K.J., A.; Malepati R.N.; Najeeb S.; Balakrishna P.; Pannerselvam N.K.; Singh Y.K.; et al., A survey of E-learning methods in nursing and medical education during COVID-19 pandemic in India. Nurse Education Today. 2021. 99: p. 104796. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2021.104796 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Kim R.W., C.; Clark K.; Cook C.; Horn M., Identifying risk factors for first-episode neck pain: A systematic review. Musculoskeletal Science and Practice. 2018. 33: p. 77–83. doi: 10.1016/j.msksp.2017.11.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Zirek E M.R., Yasaci Z, Griffiths MD., A systematic review of musculoskeletal disorders related to mobile phone usage. Musculoskeletal Science and Practice. 2020(102196.). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Sophia Berolo R.P.W., Amick Benjamin C 3rd, Musculoskeletal symptoms among mobile hand-held device users and their relationship to device use: A preliminary study in a Canadian university population. Appl Ergon. 2011. 42(2): p. 371–8. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2010.08.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.AlZarea BK P.S., Mobile phone head and neck pain syndrome: proposal of a new entity. Headache. 2015. 251: p. 63. [Google Scholar]
20.R. K., The effect of neck pain and headaches on the academic performance of college students. JNMS-Journal of the Neuromusculoskeletal System. 2000. 8(4): p. 118–23. [Google Scholar]
21.Gustafsson E J.P., Hagberg M., Thumb postures and physical loads during mobile phone use–A comparison of young adults with and without musculoskeletal symptoms Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology. 2010. 20(1): p. 127–35. doi: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2008.11.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Gustafsson E, J.P., Lindegård A, Hagberg M., Technique, muscle activity and kinematic differences in young adults texting on mobile phones. Ergonomics. 2011. 54(5): p. 477–87. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2011.568634 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Gold J, D.J., Thomas N, Chakravarty T, Channell V, Komaroff E-g., Postures, typing strategies, and gender differences in mobile device usage: An observational study. Applied ergonomics. 2012. 43(2): p. 408–12. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2011.06.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Kim H. J, K., S. J., The relationship between smartphone use and subjective musculoskeletal symptoms and university students. Journal of Physical Therapy Science. 2015. 27: p. 575–579. doi: 10.1589/jpts.27.575 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Chiarotto A, M.L., Ostelo RW, Boers M, Tugwell P, Terwee CB., Measurement properties of visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale, and pain severity subscale of the brief pain inventory in patients with low back pain: a systematic review. The Journal of Pain, 2019. 20(3): p. 245–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2018.07.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Alzarea BK, P.S., Mobile phone head and neck pain syndrome: Proposal of a new entity. OHDM, 2015. 14: p. 313–7. [Google Scholar]
27.Elsiddig Amal I., A.A. I., Althobaiti Manal E., Alwethainani Manal T., and Amjad M. Alzahrani Prevalence of neck and shoulder pain among Saudi universities’ students who are using smartphones and computers. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 2022. 11(1): p. 194–200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Rattaporn Sihawong E.S., Arpalak Paksaichol, Prawit Janwantanakul, Predictors for chronic neck and low back pain in office workers: a 1-year prospective cohort study. J Occup Health 2016. 58(1): p. 16–24. doi: 10.1539/joh.15-0168-OA [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Al-Hadidi F, B.I., AlRyalat SA, Al-Zu’bi B, Bsisu R, Hamdan M, et al., Association between mobile phone use and neck pain in university students: A cross-sectional study using numeric rating scale for evaluation of neck pain. PLoS One. 2019. 14(5): p. e0217231. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217231 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285451.r001

Decision Letter 0

Sıdıka Bulduk

25 Jan 2023

PONE-D-22-35345Neck pain associated with smartphone usage among university studentsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Maayah,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

I am very much thankful to the reviewers for their deep and thorough review.

Major revisions are required. Please check the reviewers’ comments.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 11 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sıdıka Bulduk, Prof. Dr.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

5. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 5 and 6 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: For lines 91 and 92, please check out the numbers and the percentages.

For lines 96-98, please check out the numbers and the percentages.

Please add the word hour(s) to Table 1 for the variable - average time spent with mobile phones.

Please add the percentages for the variable purpose of use - playing games.

Page 12, for lines 238 and 239, please check out the percentages.

Page 13, for lines 249-250, it was written “(OR: -250 0.213, 95% CI: -2.357 to -1.268, p<0.001)” for Table 4. Really?

Page 13, for lines 258-260, repetition of the same paragraph which was written above.

It is stated that “(OR: -250 0.213, 95% CI: -2.357 to -1.268, p<0.001)” is written in Table 4 for lines 249-250 on page 13. Really?

According to me, in the discussion section, links/comparisons to other literature are poor. The discussion section should be rewritten.

Reviewer #2: Abstract Section

Mention the objectives correctly.Conclusion in the abstract section should not include the future scope. Mention clinical implication of the current study in the conclusion

Main Manuscript

Methods

1. Give statistics of how many questionnaires were rolled out and how many filled with Response rate calculation

2. Exclusion criteria to be mentioned

3. Process of development of questionnaire and how its validity was done to be mentioned

4. In inclusion criteria, give operational definition for duration of usage of smartphone.

Discussion to be written in detail with reason for all the factors to have an impact on neck pain

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Prachita Walankar

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Jun 23;18(6):e0285451. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285451.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

14 Mar 2023

PLOS ONE

March 9, 2023

Re: manuscript re-submission

Dear Editor,

We are resubmitting our manuscript, "Neck pain associated with smartphone use among university students," to be considered for publication as an original research article in the Healthcare Journal.

We thank you and the reviewers for taking the time to read our paper and providing valuable comments. It was your valuable and insightful comments that led to possible improvements in the current version. The authors have carefully considered the comments and tried our best to address every one of them. We are hopeful that the manuscript will careful revisions to meet your high standards. The authors welcome further constructive comments, if any.

Below, we provide the point-by-point responses. All modifications to the manuscript have been highlighted in red. Please refer to our submission page and line numbers to see what modifications we've made. The authors provided two copies of the manuscript: one with tracking changes and the other without.

Thank you for your time and consideration of our work. If you have any questions, please contact us.

Sincerely,

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

The followings were added to the ethical approval section. “A written informed consent was obtained on the first page of the study’s questionnaire, which was written in Arabic and English (the official language in Saudi Arabia is Arabic). For participants aged less than18 years, their parents/guardians also provided informed written consent.”

We are very sorry

The data underlying the results presented in the study have been submitted.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

The data underlying the results presented in the study have been submitted.,

Tables 5 and 6 were references in the result section. Has been corrected to Table 5 instead of Table 3 in the clean copy as per your request, as follows:

“In the univariate model, all hand sides used for writing text messages, time spent using a mobile device, and having a history of neck or shoulder pain were significant predictors of neck and shoulder pain severity (p 0.018) (Table 5). However, in the multivariate model, both having a history of neck or shoulder pain (OR: -0.213, 95% CI: 0.639 -0.748, p<0.001) and the hand-side used for writing (OR: -0.072, 95%CI: -1.18 - -0.081, p=0.025) were significant predictors of neck and shoulder pain severity, and they both explained 11.3% of its variance. (Table 6).”

The reviewers’ comments were addressed, and the authors responses are below:

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

We thank the reviewer for this comment. The entire manuscript has been edited to improve the quality and to make the study replicable. More information has been added to explain the study sample size and the discussion and conclusion were modified to reflect the results of the study.

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

For the statistical analysis of this study, we consulted a statistician, and he indicated that the statistical analysis used in this study is appropriate and rigorous. In this study, univariate regression model was used to identify factors that predict the outcomes of interest and to evaluate the proportion that each factor can explain the outcomes of interest. While the multivariate regression model was used to determine the best fit model.

________________________________________

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

The data will be available without restriction

________________________________________

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

________________________________________

5. Review Comments to the Author

Responses to Reviewer #1:

Reviewer 1 Authors responses

For lines 91 and 92, please check out the numbers and the percentages. Thank you for the most important point.

It has been corrected on page 10, lines 8+9, as follows:

“The overall average of hours per day spent on smartphones revealed a maximum percentage of 465 (53.63%) equal to or greater than 4 hours and the lowest percentage of 402 (46.37%) less than 4 hours.”

For lines 96-98, please check out the numbers and the percentages.

Thank for your kind response

It has been corrected on page 10, lines 14+15, as follows:

For test massages sent per day, the highest percentage was for those who sent 22 test massages or more 317 (29.99%), followed by 1-5 messages with 260 (29.99%), and the lowest percentages of 12-15 with 32 (3.69%).

Please add the word hour(s) to Table 1 for the variable - average time spent with mobile phones. Thank you for your good comment.

It has been added in to the table 1

Please add the percentages for the variable purpose of use - playing games. I appreciated your comment.

It has been added on Table 1.

Page 12, for lines 238 and 239, please check out the percentages. Thank for your important comments

It has been corrected on page 15, lines 2- 3, as follows:

In Figure 7, the findings of the current study are shown to be that 292 (33.7%) of the participants had mild pain, 233 (26.9%) had moderate pain, and 89 (10.3%) had severe pain.

Page 13, for lines 249-250, it was written “(OR: -250 0.213, 95% CI: -2.357 to -1.268, p<0.001)” for Table 4. Really?

It has been corrected on page 16, lines 2- 6, as follows:

In the multivariate model, only having a history of neck or shoulder pain (OR: 0.647, 95%CI: 0.567 - 0.738, p≤0.001) and the number of hours spent on the device for studying (OR.19, 95% CI: 0.254-0.512, p<0.001) were significant predictors of neck and shoulder pain duration in multivariate model, and they both explained 8.4% of its variance (Table 4).

Page 13, for lines 258-260, repetition of the same paragraph which was written above.

It is stated that “(OR: -250 0.213, 95% CI: -2.357 to -1.268, p<0.001)” is written in Table 4 for lines 249-250 on page 13. Really? Thank you very much for your comments.

It has been corrected on page 16, lines 13- 16, as follows:

“in the multivariate model, both having a history of neck or shoulder pain (OR: -0.213, 95% CI: 0.639 -0.748, p<0.001) and the hand-side used for writing (OR: -0.072, 95%CI: -1.18 - -0.081, p=0.025) were significant predictors of neck and shoulder pain severity, and they both explained 11.3% of its variance. (Table 6).”

According to me, in the discussion section, links/comparisons to other literature are poor. The discussion section should be rewritten. Thank you so much for your comments.

The discussion and conclusion sections have been edited and corrected in red to reflect the findings of the current study.

Responses to Reviewer #2:

Reviewer 2 Authors responses

Abstract Section

Mention the objectives correctly. Thank you for the most important point.

The conclusion of the abstract has been corrected on page 2, lines 4-12, as follows:

Objective: Neck and shoulder pain has been linked to prolonged periods of flexed neck posture. However, the influences of factors related to individuals’ characteristics and the time duration and position of using smartphones on the severity and duration of neck and shoulder pain among university students are not well studied. The aim of this study was to identify factors related to individual demographic, history of neck pain, and time duration and positions of using the smart phone that could associate with neck pain severity and duration, and to determine the influence of these factors on neck pain severity and duration among university students.

Conclusion in the abstract section should not include the future scope. Mention clinical implication of the current study in the conclusion

Thank for your kind response

The conclusion of the abstract has been corrected on page 3, lines 19-23, as follows:

Main Manuscript

Methods

1. Give statistics of how many questionnaires were rolled out and how many filled with Response rate calculation Thank you for your good comment.

It has been edited and added on page 6, lines 23- 24, as follows:

The questionnaires were distributed to the five health faculties by the authors. Questionnaires were distributed to students via Facebook, an online social media and social networking service, by posting them in their batch groups. We received a total of 1000 questionnaires, of which 867 were included and 133 were excluded due to missing data.

2. Exclusion criteria to be mentioned

I appreciated your comment.

The exclusion criteria have been clarified on page 7, line 23, and page 8, lines 1-2, as follows:

Students were excluded from the study if they had any of the following chronic medical conditions: musculoskeletal disorders or a prior surgery in the neck, shoulder, or upper limb.

3. Process of development of questionnaire and how its validity was done to be mentioned.

Thank for your important comments

It has been added on page 7, lines 14- 16, as follows:

The English version of the survey was reliable and valid. The English version of the survey was translated into Arabic using back translation for the Arabic sample (Kristine Bandgaard 2019).

4. In inclusion criteria, give operational definition for duration of usage of smartphone. Thank you for your very important comments.

It has been defined on page 7, line 20+ page 8, lines 1- 2 as your requested.

Discussion to be written in detail with reason for all the factors to have an impact on neck pain. Thank you again and again for the very important comments. The discussion was rewriting as you requested

________________________________________

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Prachita Walankar

Attachment

Submitted filename: Cover letter to PLOS ONE Journal Edirors.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(31.9KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285451.r003

Decision Letter 1

Sıdıka Bulduk

10 Apr 2023

PONE-D-22-35345R1Neck pain associated with smartphone usage among university studentsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Maayah,

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 25 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sıdıka Bulduk, Prof. Dr.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

I am very much thankful to the reviewers for their deep and thorough review.

Major revisions are required. Please check the reviewers’ comments carefully.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Why the sentences are different which explain the aim of the study in the abstract and the introduction section?

Page 12, Line 22, I suggest, 317 (36.56%)

The conclusion section should be clear and concise.

Conclusions: The findings of this study may help academic institutions and collegiate students be aware of the negative impact of using smartphones and identify those measures that can contribute to the development of neck and shoulder pain duration and severity. Furthermore, academic institutions may consider providing students with study materials that require using a smartphone for a short time in an attempt to lower the risk and severity of musculoskeletal pain among the young academic population

Reviewer #2: Yes.The authors have answered to all queries raised during first review. This has enhanced the quality of study.

Reviewer #3: The goal of this manuscript intended to identify factors associated with neck pain severity and duration among university students using smartphone. They conduct a cross-sectional study with online questionnaire and analyzed 867 responses. They reported the significant association of neck and shoulder pain duration or severity with a history of neck or shoulder pain, the hand-side used for writing, and the number of hours spent on the device for studying.

1. Line 11 in page 9. “linear regression model…..OR: odds ratios…” how to present OR in linear regression?

2. Table 1. What’s the total time for “The average time spent using a mobile phone (hour)”? Per day, per week, or others? Same question applies to other parts of the table.

3. Table 1. are “playing games”, “social media”, and “studying” exclusive? i.e. it should be “playing games only” and so on?

4. Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6. What analysis was performed for the results in Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6? The title says “linear regression”. If it is linear regression, what’s OR presented in the table? The same question applies to the corresponding manuscript text as well!

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

<quillbot-extension-portal></quillbot-extension-portal>

PLoS One. 2023 Jun 23;18(6):e0285451. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285451.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1

19 Apr 2023

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

________________________________________

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

________________________________________

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

________________________________________

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

________________________________________

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

________________________________________

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Why the sentences are different which explain the aim of the study in the abstract and the introduction section?

The aim of the study has been corrected and it is being consistent in both the abstract and intro section as the following:

Page 6, lines 7-11, as follows:

The aim of this study was to identify factors related to individual demographics, the history of neck pain, and the time duration and positions of using the smartphone that could be associated with neck pain severity and duration and to determine the influence of these factors on neck pain severity and duration among university students.

Page 12, Line 22, I suggest, 317 (36.56%)

Page 10, line 8.

It has been corrected, as per your request.

The conclusion section should be clear and concise.

These two sentences have been deleted.

Reviewer #2: Yes. The authors have answered to all queries raised during first review. This has enhanced the quality of study.

1. Line 11 in page 9. “linear regression model, OR: odds ratios…” how to present OR in linear regression?

We apologize for the mistake, the odd ratios have been removed from the tables and the manuscript.

2. Table 1. What’s the total time for “The average time spent using a mobile phone (hour)”? Per day, per week, or others? Same question applies to other parts of the table.

The questions asked about the number of hours spent on smartphones and the number of texts sent per day. The table shows the number of students stratified by the number of hours, and we did not collect data about the total number of hours.

3. Table 1. are “playing games”, “social media”, and “studying” exclusive? i.e. it should be “playing games only” and so on?

Thank you for your comment, but table 1 represents the questionnaire as is.

The statistical analysis used was linear regression, and we agree with the reviewer that the Odd ratio is not appropriate to be used in this case and the β coefficients are the regression coefficients that are appropriate to be used to indicate the difference between two marginal means in continuous measures. The odd ratios have been removed from the tables and the manuscript.________________________________________

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Attachment

Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers_Pols.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(21.7KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285451.r005

Decision Letter 2

Sıdıka Bulduk

24 Apr 2023

Neck pain associated with smartphone usage among university students

PONE-D-22-35345R2

Dear Dr. Maayah,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Sıdıka Bulduk, Prof. Dr.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

<quillbot-extension-portal></quillbot-extension-portal>

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285451.r006

Acceptance letter

Sıdıka Bulduk

14 Jun 2023

PONE-D-22-35345R2

Neck pain associated with smartphone usage among university students

Dear Dr. Maayah:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Sıdıka Bulduk

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Attachment

Submitted filename: Cover letter to PLOS ONE Journal Edirors.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(31.9KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers_Pols.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(21.7KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

The data underlying the results presented in the study are available at https://figshare.com/s/ac23748dd94494111712.

[pone.0285451.ref001] 1.Chen B., L.F., Ding S., Ying X., Wang L., Wen Y., Gender differences in factors associated with smartphone addiction: A cross-sectional study among medical college students. BMC Psychiatry. 2017. 17: p. 341. doi: 10.1186/s12888-017-1503-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285451.ref002] 2.Fadi Al-Hadidi I.B., Saif Aldeen AlRyalat, Belal Al-Zu’bi, Rasha Bsisu, Mohammad Hamdan, et al., Association between mobile phone use and neck pain in university students: A cross-sectional study using numeric rating scale for evaluation of neck pain. PLoS ONE. 2019. 14: p. 1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285451.ref003] 3.Alsalameh A.M.H., M.J.; Alduayji M.A.; Almutham A.A.; Mahmood F.M., Evaluating the relationship between smartphone addiction/overuse and musculoskeletal pain among medical Care. students at Qassim University. Journal of Family Medicine Primary Care. 2019. 8: p. 2953–2959. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285451.ref004] 4.Chan L.Y.W., A.; Wang M.H.; Cheung K.; Samartzis D., The prevalence of neck pain and associated risk factors among undergraduate students: A large-scale cross-sectional study. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 2020. 76: p. 1029–1034. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285451.ref005] 5.Namwongsa S P.R., Neubert MS, Boucaut R., Factors associated with neck disorders among university student smartphone users. Work [Internet]. 2018. 61(3): p. 367–78. doi: 10.3233/WOR-182819 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285451.ref006] 6.Sileshi Ayhualem A.A., Sisay Deme Dabi, Kefale Getie Bogale, Abey Bekele Abebe, Mulugeta Bayisa Chala, Burden of neck pain and associated factors among smart phone user students in University of Gondar Ethiopia. PLOS ONE. 2021: p. 1–15. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256794 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285451.ref007] 7.Walankar PP, K.M., Govekar A, Dhanwada A., Musculoskeletal Pain and Risk Factors Associated with Smartphone Use in University Students. Indian Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine [Internet]. 2021. 25(4): p. 220–4. doi: 10.4103/ijoem.ijoem_351_20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285451.ref008] 8.Kamaruddin P., Nawi AM., Smartphone usage and pattern on self-reported symptoms among medical students in University Kebangsaan Malaysia during the COVID-19 lockdown. Research square, 2020. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285451.ref009] 9.Kazeminasab S.N., S.A.; Amiri P.; Pourfathi H.; Araj-Khodaei M.; Sullman M.; Kolahi A.; et al., Neck pain: Global epidemiology, trends and risk factors. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2022. 26(23): p. 1–13. doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04957-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285451.ref010] 10.Saudi Vision 2030, An Ambitious Vision for an Ambitious Nation. 2022. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285451.ref011] 11.Hakami T., M.M., Najmi H., Adawi A., Hakami R., Areeshi N., et al., Knowledge of and attitude towards epilepsy among university students in Saudi Arabia: Misconceptions of the next generation. Epilepsy and Behavior Reports. 2021. 16: p. 100450. doi: 10.1016/j.ebr.2021.100450 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285451.ref012] 12.Alfawareh H.M., J.S., Smartphones Usage Among University Students: Najran University Case. International Journal of academic research. 2014. 6: p. 321–326. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285451.ref013] 13.Alosaimi F.D., A.H., Alshahwan H., Al Mahyijari N., Shaik S.A., Smartphone addiction among university students in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Medical Journal. 2016. 37: p. 675–683. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285451.ref014] 14.Abdullah M Alsalameh M.J.H., Alduayji Muath A, Almutham Abdullah A, Mahmood Farid M Evaluating the relationship between smartphone addiction/overuse and musculoskeletal pain among medical students at Qassim University. Journal of Family Medicine Primary Care. 2019. 8: p. 2953–2959. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_665_19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285451.ref015] 15.Singh H.K.J., A.; Malepati R.N.; Najeeb S.; Balakrishna P.; Pannerselvam N.K.; Singh Y.K.; et al., A survey of E-learning methods in nursing and medical education during COVID-19 pandemic in India. Nurse Education Today. 2021. 99: p. 104796. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2021.104796 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285451.ref016] 16.Kim R.W., C.; Clark K.; Cook C.; Horn M., Identifying risk factors for first-episode neck pain: A systematic review. Musculoskeletal Science and Practice. 2018. 33: p. 77–83. doi: 10.1016/j.msksp.2017.11.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285451.ref017] 17.Zirek E M.R., Yasaci Z, Griffiths MD., A systematic review of musculoskeletal disorders related to mobile phone usage. Musculoskeletal Science and Practice. 2020(102196.). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285451.ref018] 18.Sophia Berolo R.P.W., Amick Benjamin C 3rd, Musculoskeletal symptoms among mobile hand-held device users and their relationship to device use: A preliminary study in a Canadian university population. Appl Ergon. 2011. 42(2): p. 371–8. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2010.08.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285451.ref019] 19.AlZarea BK P.S., Mobile phone head and neck pain syndrome: proposal of a new entity. Headache. 2015. 251: p. 63. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285451.ref020] 20.R. K., The effect of neck pain and headaches on the academic performance of college students. JNMS-Journal of the Neuromusculoskeletal System. 2000. 8(4): p. 118–23. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285451.ref021] 21.Gustafsson E J.P., Hagberg M., Thumb postures and physical loads during mobile phone use–A comparison of young adults with and without musculoskeletal symptoms Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology. 2010. 20(1): p. 127–35. doi: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2008.11.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285451.ref022] 22.Gustafsson E, J.P., Lindegård A, Hagberg M., Technique, muscle activity and kinematic differences in young adults texting on mobile phones. Ergonomics. 2011. 54(5): p. 477–87. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2011.568634 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285451.ref023] 23.Gold J, D.J., Thomas N, Chakravarty T, Channell V, Komaroff E-g., Postures, typing strategies, and gender differences in mobile device usage: An observational study. Applied ergonomics. 2012. 43(2): p. 408–12. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2011.06.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285451.ref024] 24.Kim H. J, K., S. J., The relationship between smartphone use and subjective musculoskeletal symptoms and university students. Journal of Physical Therapy Science. 2015. 27: p. 575–579. doi: 10.1589/jpts.27.575 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285451.ref025] 25.Chiarotto A, M.L., Ostelo RW, Boers M, Tugwell P, Terwee CB., Measurement properties of visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale, and pain severity subscale of the brief pain inventory in patients with low back pain: a systematic review. The Journal of Pain, 2019. 20(3): p. 245–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2018.07.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285451.ref026] 26.Alzarea BK, P.S., Mobile phone head and neck pain syndrome: Proposal of a new entity. OHDM, 2015. 14: p. 313–7. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285451.ref027] 27.Elsiddig Amal I., A.A. I., Althobaiti Manal E., Alwethainani Manal T., and Amjad M. Alzahrani Prevalence of neck and shoulder pain among Saudi universities’ students who are using smartphones and computers. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 2022. 11(1): p. 194–200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285451.ref028] 28.Rattaporn Sihawong E.S., Arpalak Paksaichol, Prawit Janwantanakul, Predictors for chronic neck and low back pain in office workers: a 1-year prospective cohort study. J Occup Health 2016. 58(1): p. 16–24. doi: 10.1539/joh.15-0168-OA [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0285451.ref029] 29.Al-Hadidi F, B.I., AlRyalat SA, Al-Zu’bi B, Bsisu R, Hamdan M, et al., Association between mobile phone use and neck pain in university students: A cross-sectional study using numeric rating scale for evaluation of neck pain. PLoS One. 2019. 14(5): p. e0217231. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217231 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Neck pain associated with smartphone usage among university students

Mikhled Falah Maayah

Zakariya H Nawasreh

Riziq Allah M Gaowgzeh

Ziyad Neamatallah

Saad S Alfawaz

Umar M Alabasi

Roles

Abstract

Objective

Subjects and methods

Results

Conclusions

Introduction

Subjects and methods

Data collection and study design

Questionnaire design

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Ethical approval

Statistical analysis

Results

Demographics

Fig 1. Shows the frequency and percentage measures of neck pain by gender and age among university students.

Fig 2. Shows the frequency and percentage measures of neck pain by faculties among university students.

Pattern of mobile phone use

Table 1. Frequencies and percentages measures for mobile phone use.

Fig 3. Shows the frequency and percentage measures of neck pain by pain duration per hours among university students.

Fig 4. Shows the frequency and percentage measures of neck pain by the most common timing of the pain among university students.

Fig 5. Shows the frequency and percentage measures of neck pain by pain intensity (on a scale of 1–10) among university students.

Fig 6. Shows the frequency and percentage measures of neck pain by pain frequency (in days per week) among university students.

Table 2. Shows the frequency and percentages of people who use analgesics and seek medical care for neck pain.

Fig 7. Shows the frequency and percentage measures of neck pain by level of intensity among university students.

Table 3. Univariate linear regression for predictor measures of neck and shoulder pain duration in hours among universities students.

Table 4. Multivariate linear regression for predictor measures of neck and shoulder pain duration in hours among universities students.

Table 5. Univariate linear regression for predictor measures of neck and shoulder pain severity among universities students.

Table 6. Multivariate linear regression for predictor measures of neck and shoulder pain severity in hours among university students.

Discussion

Limitations of the study

Conclusions

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Sıdıka Bulduk

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Sıdıka Bulduk

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Decision Letter 2

Sıdıka Bulduk

Roles

Acceptance letter

Sıdıka Bulduk

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases