Xác suất sử dụng mạng xã hội có vấn đề ở người trưởng thành là bao nhiêu?

Mỗi con số dưới đây là những gì mỗi nguồn đã báo cáo, cùng với trích dẫn nguyên văn mà chúng tôi dựa vào và cách chúng tôi đưa ra con số của mình. Nhấp vào bất kỳ liên kết nào để xác minh trực tiếp.

1/3 nguồn được xác minh độc lập đúng từng chữ so với nguồn được trích dẫn

1. [1] Drug and Alcohol Dependence / ScienceDirect — Has the prevalence of problematic social media use increased over the past seven years and since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic? A meta-analysis of the studies published since the development of the Bergen social media addiction scale Được bình duyệt

   Has the prevalence of problematic social media use increased over the past seven years and since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic? A meta-analysis of the studies published since the development of the Bergen social media addiction scale

   Thống kê

   Pooled prevalence of problematic social media use: ~5% (95% CI 3%–7%) using strict/monothetic classifications; 13% using severe cut-off; 25% using moderate cut-off; 139 independent samples, 32 countries, n=133,955

   Trích đoạn

   “"The pooled prevalence estimate was 5% (95% CI: 3%–7%) for studies adopting monothetic or strict monothetic classifications, with a higher pooled prevalence estimate (13%; 95% CI: 8%–19%) found for studies adopting a cutoff for severe level or strict polythetic classifications, and 25% (95% CI: 21%–29%) for studies adopting a cutoff for moderate level or polythetic classifications. PSMU as assessed by the BSMAS was significantly higher in low-income countries." ”

   Dữ liệu nguồn từ

   2023-08-01

   Truy cập

   2026-05-04 · bản sao lưu trữ

   Tính toán

   Primary prevalence source. The 5% strict-criteria figure is used as the native rate (numerator=5, denominator=100). The 139-sample meta-analysis (n=133,955) spanning 32 countries provides the most comprehensive synthesis of BSMAS-based PSU prevalence to date. For normalization to lifetime_us_adult=0.08, we apply a conservative upward adjustment from the cross-sectional 5% to account for the dynamic, cyclical nature of PSU over a lifetime (individuals enter and leave problematic use states). The 95% CI range from strict (3%–7%) to moderate (21%–29%) criteria bounds the uncertainty range; we use 4%–15% as the uncertainty bounds to reflect realistic variability in strict-to-moderate definitions for a US adult context.

2. [2] Journal of Behavioral Addictions / PMC — Psychometric properties of the Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale: An analysis using item response theory Đã xác minh Được bình duyệt

   Psychometric properties of the Bergen Social Media Addiction Scale: An analysis using item response theory

   Thống kê

   BSMAS-assessed problematic social media use prevalence ranges widely (3.5%–36.9%), with lower rates in Western countries (1.5%–15%) than in Asia (31%) and the Middle East (29%); an item-response-theory analysis proposes a conditional diagnostic cut-off of ≥26 (of 30) for high PSMU risk

   Trích đoạn

   “"High disparities in PSMU prevalence have been reported with rates ranging from 3.5% to 36.9%. This difference could be explained by seemingly lower prevalence rates in Western countries (1.5%-15%) compared to those found in Asia (31%) and the Middle East (29%). [...] prior to clinical assessment confirmation, a score of ≥26 could be taken as a conditional diagnostic cut-off point for risk of PSMU." ”

   Dữ liệu nguồn từ

   2022-12-01

   Truy cập

   2026-05-04 · bản sao lưu trữ

   Xác minh

   Trích đoạn đã được tải lại độc lập và xác nhận đúng từng chữ so với nguồn được trích dẫn trong quá trình kiểm định căn cứ của chúng tôi.

   Tính toán

   Supporting source establishing the psychometric properties of the BSMAS, the primary instrument underlying the meta-analytic estimates in the primary source. This item-response- theory analysis documents the extreme cross-study disparity in PSMU prevalence (3.5%–36.9%), with markedly lower rates in Western countries (1.5%–15%) than in Asia (31%) or the Middle East (29%) — context for why the strict-criteria 5% native figure is conservative for a US adult population. It also proposes a high-risk cut-off of ≥26 (only 1.1% of its sample scored at or above this threshold). This source establishes that BSMAS is not a clinical diagnostic instrument — it measures scale-positive problematic use, not a recognized DSM-5 or ICD-11 disorder.

3. [3] Drug and Alcohol Dependence / PubMed — Prevalence of social media addiction across 32 nations: Meta-analysis with subgroup analysis of classification schemes and cultural values Được bình duyệt

   Prevalence of social media addiction across 32 nations: Meta-analysis with subgroup analysis of classification schemes and cultural values

   Thống kê

   Pooled social media addiction prevalence varies by classification scheme: 5% (95% CI 3%–7%) strict/monothetic, 13% (8%–19%) severe, 25% (21%–29%) moderate/polythetic; 14% (9%–19%) in individualist nations vs 31% (26%–36%) in collectivist nations; 63 independent samples, 34,798 respondents, 32 nations

   Trích đoạn

   “"The meta-analysis involved 63 independent samples with 34,798 respondents from 32 nations spanning seven world regions. [...] the pooled prevalence estimate obtained in collectivist nations (31%; 95% CI: 26%-36%) to be twofold higher than that obtained in individualist nations (14%; 95% CI: 9%-19%)." ”

   Dữ liệu nguồn từ

   2021-04-01

   Truy cập

   2026-05-04 · bản sao lưu trữ

   Tính toán

   Earlier meta-analysis (Cheng et al. 2021; 63 independent samples, 34,798 respondents, 32 nations) reporting prevalence by classification scheme: 5% (strict/monothetic), 13% (severe), and 25% (moderate/polythetic). The 14% figure for individualist nations (which better approximates the US context) provides an upper-bound anchor, and the 5% strict-monothetic figure corroborates the strict-criteria native rate. The roughly fivefold spread across classification schemes illustrates the extreme instrument-dependence of PSU estimates. This source is used to contextualize the strict-criteria 5% native figure within the broader evidence base — demonstrating that the estimate is highly sensitive to measurement choice.