Problemli İnternet Kullanımı ve Problemli İnternet Kullanımına Sosyal Hizmet Bakış Açısıyla Müdahale

Abstract

Dijital çağın en önemli meydan okumalarından biri olan problemli internet kullanımı (PİK), bireylerin yaşamlarını çok boyutlu etkileyen karmaşık bir davranışsal bağımlılıktır. Özellikle ergenler ve genç yetişkinlerde görülür ve akademik, mesleki, sosyal, kişisel işlevsellikte ciddi bozulmalara yol açabilir. Geleneksel olarak tıp ve psikiyatri disiplinlerinin birey odaklı yaklaşımlarıyla incelenmiş olsa da sosyal hizmetin ekolojik ve bütüncül perspektifi PİK’i aile, toplum ve sosyo ekonomik sistem dinamikleriyle iç içe geçmiş bir olgu olarak konumlandırır. Bu makale PİK’in kavramsal temellerini, DSM 5 ve ICD 11 tanı kriterlerini sosyal hizmet bakış açısından eleştirel biçimde analiz eder; disiplinler arası risk faktörlerini sentezleyerek bütüncül bir etiyolojik model sunar. Mevcut bilişsel davranışçı müdahalelerin sınırlılıklarını irdeleyip sosyal hizmetin mikro, mezzo ve makro düzeylerde uygulayabileceği entegre müdahale modellerini ayrıntılı tartışır. Sosyal adalet, dijital eşitsizlik ve toplumsal dışlanma gibi makro belirleyicilerin rolünü vurgulayarak savunuculuk gereksinimine dikkat çeker. PİK’e ilişkin etik meseleleri sosyal hizmetin temel değerleri ışığında değerlendirir ve gelecekteki araştırmalar için uzun vadeli, çok disiplinli, uygulamaya dönük öneriler sunar. Böylece literatürü eleştirel sentezleyerek sosyal hizmet mesleğine bu yaygın sorunla mücadelede teorik ve pratik bir yol haritası sağlar. Model, kültürel duyarlılık, hak temelli savunuculuk, güçlendirme, erken önleme, okul ve aile işbirliği ile kanıta dayalı değerlendirme araçlarını bütünleştiren uygulama geliştirmeyi vurgular; sürdürülebilir, politik çerçevelerle etik uyumu güçlendirir.

Keywords

• Problemli internet kullanımı
• İnternet bağımlılığı
• Sosyal hizmet
• Davranışsal bağımlılık
• Ekolojik sistem teorisi.

Problematic Internet Use and Intervention in Problematic Internet Use from a Social Work Perspective

Abstract

This study reframes Problematic Internet Use (PIU) — a salient challenge of the digital era commonly manifesting in adolescents and young adults — from a purely medical or psychiatric, individualized issue into a multidimensional phenomenon embedded within interconnected family, community, and socio economic system dynamics through the ecological, holistic perspective of social work. It systematically analyzes the conceptual foundations of PIU and critically evaluates DSM 5 and ICD 11 diagnostic criteria from a social work lens. Synthesizing multidisciplinary evidence, it advances an integrative etiological model that aggregates individual, familial, communal, and structural risk factors. The documented limitations of individually focused cognitive behavioral interventions are examined, and instead multilevel, integrated intervention frameworks deployable by social workers at the micro (individual/family), mezzo (school/community), and macro (policy/advocacy) levels are delineated. Macro level determinants—digital inequality, social exclusion, and broader social justice deficits—are highlighted as root contributors requiring systemic, preventative responses and professional advocacy. Ethical dimensions are assessed in relation to core social work values, informing principled practice. The paper concludes with long term, interdisciplinary, practice anchored recommendations that articulate a theoretically rigorous and pragmatically actionable roadmap enabling the social work profession to address PIU through comprehensive, justice oriented, sustainable strategies. It underscores measurement refinement and collaborative policy design as future implementation priorities for sustainability.

Keywords

• Problematic internet use
• Internet addiction
• Social work
• Behavioural addiction
• Ecological systems theory.

References

1. APA (American Psychiatric Association). (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC: Author.
2. Barbosa Neves, B., Fonseca, J. R., Amaro, F., ve Pasqualotti, A. (2018). Social capital and Internet use in an age-comparative perspective with a focus on later life. PloS one, 13(2), e0192119.
3. Barsky, A. (2021). Ethics alive: Special report on the 2021 revision to the NASW Code of Ethics. https://h7.cl/1dBNV
4. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard university press.
5. Cai, Z., Mao, P., Wang, Z., Wang, D., He, J., and Fan, X. (2023). Associations Between Problematic Internet Use and Mental Health Outcomes of Students: A Meta-analytic Review. Adolescent research review, 8(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-022-00201-9
6. Caplan, S. E. (2002). Problematic Internet use and psychosocial well-being: Development of a theory-based cognitive-behavioral measurement instrument. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(5), 553–575.
7. Chadha Y, Patil R, Toshniwal S. (2024) Internet Addiction Management: A Comprehensive Review of Clinical Interventions and Modalities. Cureus 16(3): e55466. DOI 10.7759/cureus.55466
8. Chemnad, K., Aziz, M., Abdelmoneium, A. O., Al-Harahsheh, S., Baghdady, A., Al Motawaa, F. Y., ... and Ali, R. (2023). Adolescents’ Internet addiction: Does it all begin with their environment?. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 17(1), 87.

9. Chou, C., and Hsiao, M. C. (2000). Internet addiction, usage, gratification, and pleasure experience: the Taiwan college students’ case. Computers and Education, 35(1), 65-80.
10. Davis, R. A. (2001). A cognitive-behavioral model of pathological Internet use. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(2), 187–195.
11. De Veirman, M., Hudders, L., and Nelson, M. R. (2019). What is influencer marketing and how does it target children? A review and direction for future research. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 498106.
12. DiFranks, N. N. (2008). Social workers and the NASW Code of Ethics: Belief, behavior, disjuncture. Social Work, 53(2), 167-176.
13. Ding, H., Cao, B., and Sun, Q. (2023). The association between problematic internet use and social anxiety within adolescents and young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Public Health, 11, 1275723.
14. Doğrusever, C., and Bilgin, M. (2025). From family social support to problematic internet use: a serial mediation model of hostility and depression. BMC psychology, 13(1), 178.
15. European Commission, (2025). Commission publishes guidelines on the protection of minors, Policy And Legislation
16. Filomensky, T. Z., and Tavares, H. (2009). Cognitive restructuring for compulsive buying. Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, 31, 77–78.
17. Goldberg, I. (1996). Internet addiction disorder. CyberPsychol. Behavior, 3(4), 403-412.
18. Griffiths, M. D. King, DL, Delfabbro, PH and Griffiths, MD (2010). Cognitive behavioural therapy for problematic video game players: Conceptual considerations and practice issues. Journal of CyberTherapy and Rehabilitation, 3, 261-273.
19. Kurpad, S. S. (2018). Ethics in psychosocial interventions. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 60(Suppl 4), S571-S574.
20. Kuss, D. J., and Lopez-Fernandez, O. (2016). Internet addiction and problematic Internet use: A systematic review of clinical research. World journal of psychiatry, 6(1), 143.
21. Li, S., Ren, P., Chiu, M. M., Wang, C., and Lei, H. (2021). The relationship between self-control and internet addiction among students: a meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 735755. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.735755
22. Liu, J., Wu, L., Sun, X., Bai, X., and Duan, C. (2023). Active parental mediation and adolescent problematic internet use: The mediating role of parent–child relationships and hiding online behavior. Behavioral Sciences, 13(8), 679.
23. Lu, J., Li, S., Fan, T., Ni, X., Zhang, L., Chen, H., and Shen, Y. (2025). Childhood Maltreatment, Bullying, and Internet Addiction in Relation to Suicidal Ideation Among Adolescents: Cross-Sectional Mediation and Network Analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27, e79858.
24. Miller, W. R., and Rollnick, S. (2012). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change. Guilford Press. Molala, T. S., and Makhubele, J. C. (2021). The connection between digital divide and social exclusion: Implications for social work. Humanities ve Social Sciences Reviews, 9(4), 194-201.
25. Morahan-Martin, J., and Schumacher, P. (2000). Incidence and correlates of pathological Internet use among college students. Computers in human behavior, 16(1), 13-29, https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2021.9427
26. Moreno, M. A., Egan, K. G., Bare, K., Young, H. N., and Cox, E. D. (2013). Internet safety education for youth: stakeholder perspectives. BMC public health, 13(1), 543.
27. Ögel, K. (2014). Bağımlı aileleri için rehber kitap. İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
28. Prochaska, J. O., and DiClemente, C. C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 390–395.
29. Ramirez-Garcia, A., Gutierrez-Arenas, M. D. P., and Gomez-Moreno, M. (2022). Machiavellianism and desire to be a youtuber and/or influencer in the Z and Alpha generations. Profesional de La Informacion, 31(2).
30. Reamer, F. G. (2019). Social work education in a digital world: Technology standards for education and practice. Journal of Social Work Education, 55(3), 420-432.
31. Reyhan, S. (2020). Effect of internet addiction on leisure facilitators in individuals thinking that their health worsens through the internet. Effect of internet addiction on leisure facilitators in individuals thinking that their health worsens through the internet.
32. Saleebey, D. (Ed.). (2002). The strengths perspective in social work practice. Allyn and Bacon. Sanders, C. K., and Scanlon, E. (2021). The digital divide is a human rights issue: Advancing social inclusion through social work advocacy. Journal of human rights and social work, 6(2), 130-143, https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2021.9427
33. Schmid, J. (2008). Alkolizm ve aile. I. Yalom, (Ed), Alkolizm Terapisi içinde (353-394). İstanbul: Prestij Yayınları.
34. Teppers, E., Luyckx, K., Klimstra, T. A., and Goossens, L. (2014). Loneliness and Facebook motives in adolescence: A longitudinal inquiry into directionality of effect. Journal of adolescence, 37(5), 691-699.
35. Throuvala, M. A., Griffiths, M. D., Rennoldson, M., and Kuss, D. J. (2021). Policy recommendations for preventing problematic internet use in schools: a qualitative study of parental perspectives. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(9), 4522.
36. Turan, N. (2009). Sosyal kişisel çalışma. Birey ve Aile İçin Sosyal Hizmet.(3. Baskı), Aydınlar Matbaası. Van Deursen, A. J., Bolle, C. L., Hegner, S. M., and Kommers, P. A. (2015). Modeling habitual and addictive smartphone behavior: The role of smartphone usage types, emotional intelligence, social stress, self-regulation, age, and gender. Computers in human behavior, 45, 411-420.
37. Wang Y, Zhou K, Wang Y, Zhang J, Xie Y, Wang X, Yang W, Zhang X, Yang J and Wang F (2024) Examining the association of family environment and children emotional/behavioral difficulties in the relationship between parental anxiety and internet addiction in youth. Front. Psychiatry 15:1341556. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1341556
38. Wang, L. X., Dou, K., Li, J. B., Zhang, M. C., and Guan, J. Y. (2021). The association between interparental conflict and problematic internet use among Chinese adolescents: Testing a moderated mediation model. Computers in Human Behavior, 122, 106832.
39. Wang, Y., and Zeng, Y. (2024). Relationship between loneliness and internet addiction: a meta-analysis. BMC public health, 24(1), 858.
40. Wei, W. X., Zhao, X. X., and Chooi, W. T. (2025). Family Conflict is Associated with Increased Risk of Problematic Digital Media Use in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review with Narrative Synthesis. Adolescent Research Review, 1-14.
41. WHO (World Health Organization). (2019). International classification of diseases for mortality and morbidity statistics (11th Revision). https://icd.who.int
42. Yanardağ, M. Z., Bilge, M., ve Yanardağ, U. (2020). Davranış bağımlılığı ve sosyal hizmet uygulamaları üzerine bir inceleme. Manisa Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 7(4), 551–560.
43. Yıldırım Demirdöğen, E., Akıncı, M. A., Bozkurt, A., Bayraktutan, B., Turan, B., Aydoğdu, S. and Ferahkaya, H. (2024). Social media addiction, escapism and coping strategies are associated with the problematic internet use of adolescents in Türkiye: a multi-center study. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 15, 1355759.
44. Young, K. S. (2004). Internet addiction: A new clinical phenomenon and its consequences. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(4), 402–415.
45. Zhihao, D., Tao, W., Yingjie, S., and Feng, Z. (2024). The influence of physical activity on internet addiction among Chinese college students: the mediating role of self-esteem and the moderating role of gender. BMC Public Health, 24(1), 935.
46. Zhu, X., Deng, C., and Bai, W. (2023). Parental control and adolescent internet addiction: the moderating effect of parent-child relationships. Frontiers in Public Health, 11, 1190534.