Table 4.
Risk of Problematic Internet Use | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
High vs. Moderate Risk | Moderate vs. Low Risk | High vs. Low Risk | ||||
OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | |
Individual Characteristics | ||||||
Age (per year) | 1.06 | 0.98; 1.14 | 1.12 *** | 1.04; 1.21 | 1.18 *** | 1.09; 1.29 |
Gender (female vs. male ref) | 1.16 | 0.86; 1.57 | 1.15 | 0.88; 1.51 | 1.34 * | 0.97; 1.84 |
Marital status (single ref) | ||||||
Having partner/being married | 1.75 *** | 1.20; 2.55 | 0.65 ** | 0.46; 0.93 | 1.14 | 0.78; 1.67 |
Living arrangement (family ref) | ||||||
Friends | 0.48 *** | 0.28; 0.81 | 0.86 | 0.57; 1.29 | 0.41 *** | 0.24; 0.71 |
Alone | 1.31 | 0.82; 2.09 | 2.66 *** | 1.51; 4.68 | 3.47 *** | 1.91; 6.31 |
Time using social network sites (per hours) | 0.95 ** | 0.90; 1.00 | 1.10 *** | 1.05; 1.15 | 1.04 | 0.98; 1.10 |
Kessler score (per score) | 0.96 ** | 0.93; 1.00 | 1.17 *** | 1.14; 1.21 | 1.13 *** | 1.09; 1.18 |
Self-reported health status (per score) | 1.00 | 0.99; 1.00 | 0.98 *** | 0.97; 0.99 | 0.98 *** | 0.97; 0.99 |
Community Characteristics | ||||||
Province (Tuyen Quang ref) | ||||||
Ha Noi | 2.09 *** | 1.28; 3.41 | 2.30 *** | 1.40; 3.79 | 4.82 *** | 2.80; 8.28 |
Quang Tri | 0.85 | 0.53; 1.37 | 1.18 | 0.77; 1.81 | 1.00 | 0.60; 1.67 |
Dak Lak | 0.61 * | 0.36; 1.03 | 0.99 | 0.64; 1.55 | 0.61 * | 0.35; 1.06 |
Ho Chi Minh City | 1.11 | 0.68; 1.80 | 1.15 | 0.74; 1.79 | 1.27 | 0.77; 2.10 |
Location (rural/mountainous vs. urban ref) | 0.62 *** | 0.44; 0.87 | 1.10 | 0.82; 1.48 | 0.68 ** | 0.47; 0.98 |
Community cohesion | ||||||
Neighborhood cohesion (per score) | 1.08 | 0.98; 1.19 | 1.06 | 0.97; 1.16 | 1.14 ** | 1.03; 1.27 |
Neighborhood disorder (per score) | 1.70 *** | 1.37; 2.11 | 1.46 *** | 1.12; 1.92 | 2.49 *** | 1.89; 3.28 |
*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.