Table 2.
Overview of exercise intervention with smartphone addiction.
| Reference | Location | Participant characteristics | Intervention program | Motor skill training |
Outcome measured |
follow-up | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample size | Smartphone addiction level | Mean age or age range | Gender |
Frequency (weekly) |
Time (min) |
Duration (week) |
|||||
| Renkai et al. (2015) | Nanchang, China |
n = 36 (EG:18, CG:18) |
Severe level | 20.13 ± 1.35 | M & F | EG: Volleyball CG: UC |
3 | 120 | 18 | MPAI ↑ (WS ↑, HB uncontrolled ↑) |
NR |
| Lirong (2015) | Zhengzhou, China |
n = 38 (EG: 20, CG: 18) |
Severe level | 20.33 ± 1.64 (freshman) | M & F | EG: Bicycle + Basketball + Badminton CG: UC |
3 | 60 | 12 | MPAI ↑ (WS ↑, HB uncontrolle ↑) |
NR |
| Xingtong and Chao (2016) | Shandong, China | n = 49 | Mild-to-moderate level | 19.7 ± 1. 5 | M & F | Basketball + Badminton +Run +Volleyball | 3 | 90 | 10 | MPATS ↑ (WS ↑; SC ↑; MC ↑; HBsalience ↑) |
NR |
| Rongchang and Xiaoyang (2015) | Nanjing, China |
n = 754 (EG: 344, CG: 410) |
NR | 18–22 (freshman) |
M & F | EG: Basketball + Badminton + Football + Tennis CG: UC |
5 | 45–60 | 12 | MPATS ↑ (WS ↑; SC↑; MC ↑; HB salience ↑) |
NR |
| Kai (2016) | Taiyuan, China |
n = 73 (EG: 36, CG: 37) |
Mild-to-moderate level | 18–22 | M & F | EG: Basketball +Table tennis + Badminton + Volleyball CG: UC |
3 | 45 | 12 | SAS-C ↑ (WS ↑; SC ↑; MC ↑; HB salience ↑) |
NR |
| Jingsong et al. (2016) | Hunan, China |
n = 80 (EG: 40, CG: 40) |
Mild-to-moderate level | 18–22 | M & F | EG: Run CG: UC |
2 | 45 | 8 | MPATS ↑ SRAS (WS ↑; SC ↑; MC ↑; HB salience ↑) |
NR |
| Ganfang (2017) | Zhejiang, China |
n = 60 (EG: 30, CG: 30) |
Mild-to-moderate level | 20.72 ± 1.30 | M & F | EG: Taijiquan + Yoga + Run + Badminton + Tennis CG: UC |
3 | 60 | 8 | MPATS↑ (WS ↑; SC ↑; MC ↑; HB salience ↑) |
NR |
| Xiaoni et al. (2019) | Hunan, China |
n = 99 (EG: 50, CG: 49) |
Mild-to-moderate level | 18–20 | F | EG: Basketball + Badminton + Football + Tennis CG: UC |
4 | 60 | 8 | MPAI ↑ PSQI ↑ |
NR |
| Xiao et al. (2021) | Central China |
n = 100 (EG1: 33 EG2: 33 CG:34) |
Mild-to-moderate level | Baduanjin:19.21 ± 1.02. Basketball: 18.95 ± 0.89; Control:19.71 ± 1.7 |
M & F | EG1: Basketball; EG2: Baduanjin; CG: UC | 3 | 90 | 12 | MPAI ↑ SRAS ↑; UCLA-LS ↑; FIS ↑ PSS-14 ↔ |
2 months |
| Fan et al. (2021) | NR |
n = 30 (study1: 15; Study2: 15) |
Mild-to-moderate level | study 1: 20.03 ± 0.96; Study 2 :19.87 ± 0.99 | M & F | EG: Acute aerobic cycling exercise. CG: UC |
NR | 30 | NR | MPATS ↑ Go/NoGo task;; RT ↑; Ac ↑; HR; Flanker task ↑ |
NR |
M, Male; F=Female; EG, experimental group; CG, control group; UC, Usual Care; MPAI, smartphone addiction index; MPATS, Mobile phone addiction tendency scale; WS, withdrawal symptoms; HB, highlight behavior (include: inability to control craving, withdrawal and escape); SC, social comfort; MC, mood change; SAS-C, Smartphone Addiction Scale for College students; PSQI, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index scale; SRAS, Self-Rating Anxiety Scale; UCLA-LS, UCLA Loneliness Scale; FIS, Field's Feelings of Inadequacy Scale; PSS-14, Perceived Stress Scale; RT, Reaction Time; Ac, accuracy; HR, heart rate; NR, not reported. Smart phone addiction level: 40–60 points = mild-to-moderate level; more than 60 points = severe level. Highlight behavior: uncontrolled and salience are emphasizing the importance of using mobile phone on individuals, so we merged them into one item of highlight behavior. ↑, significant difference with-group from pretest-posttest; ↔, no significant difference.