The Relationship Between Social Anxiety and Internet Addiction in School-Age Children with Type 1 Diabetes

Abstract

Objective: This study was conducted to examine the relationship between social anxiety and internet addiction in school-age children with Type 1 diabetes. Materials and Methods: The study is cross-sectional and correlational. Data were collected between January 2023 and June 2023 from patients who were followed up in the pediatric endocrine outpatient clinic of a university hospital and registered in a diabetes association using the Introductory Information Form, Young Internet Addiction Scale Short Form (YIBT-SF) and Social Anxiety Scale for Children (SASC). In the analysis of the data, descriptive statistics and correlation analysis were used to determine the relationship between scale mean scores. Results: The mean age of the children was 10.48±2.47 years and 69.6% were middle school students. 61.8% of the children reported that they had their own cell phones and the average duration of internet use was 4.08±2.60 hours. The mean total score of the SASC was found to be 41.28±15.52, and the mean total score of the YIBT-SF was found to be 29.95± 10.84. When the association between the mean scores of the SASC and the total mean scores of the YIBT-SF was examined, it was determined that as the anxiety score of the children increased, their internet addiction increased. Conclusion: As a result of the study, as the level of social anxiety increases, the risk of internet addiction increases. Nurses caring for children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes mellitus can determine the social anxiety levels of children with appropriate measurement tools and plan nursing interventions for social anxiety, which may reduce the risk of dependency in children.

Keywords

• Type 1 diabetes
• Children
• Internet addiction
• Social anxiety
• Nursing

Tip 1 Diyabeti Olan Okul Çağı Çocuklarında Sosyal Kaygı ve İnternet Bağımlılığı Arasındaki İlişki

Abstract

Amaç: Bu araştırma Tip 1 diyabetli okul çağı çocuklarında sosyal kaygı ve internet bağımlılığı arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemek amacıyla yapılmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Araştırma, kesitsel ve ilişki arayıcı türdedir. Veriler, Ocak 2023- Haziran 2023 tarihleri arasında, bir üniversite hastanesinin çocuk endokrin polikliniğinde izlenen ve bir diyabet derneğinde kayıtlı hastalardan Tanıtıcı Bilgi Formu, Young İnternet Bağımlılığı Ölçeği Kısa Formu (YİBT-KF) ve Çocuklar İçin Sosyal Kaygı Ölçeği (ÇSKÖ) ile toplanmıştır. Verilerin analizinde tanımlayıcı istatistikler ve ölçek puan ortalamaları arasındaki ilişkinin belirlenmesinde korelasyon analizi kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Çocukların yaş ortalamaları 10,48±2,47 olup, %69,6’sı ortaokul öğrencisidir. Çocukların %61,8’i kendilerine ait telefonunun olduğunu ve ortalama kullandıkları internet süresinin 4,08±2,60 saat olduğunu bildirmişlerdir. ÇSKÖ toplam puan ortalamaları 41,28±15,52, YİBT-KF toplam puan ortalamaları 29,95± 10,84 olarak bulunmuştur. ÇSKÖ puan ortalamaları ile YİBT-KF toplam puan ortalamaları arasındaki ilişki incelendiğinde, çocukların kaygı puanı arttıkça internet bağımlılığının arttığı belirlenmiştir. Sonuç: Bu araştırmanın sonucunda sosyal kaygı düzeyi arttıkça internet bağımlılığı riski artmaktadır. Tip1 diyabet tanısı alan çocuklara bakım veren hemşirelerin, çocukların sosyal kaygı düzeylerini uygun ölçüm araçlarıyla belirleyerek, sosyal kaygıya yönelik hemşirelik girişimlerini planlaması çocuğun bağımlılık riskini azaltabilir.

Keywords

• Tip 1 diyabet
• Çocuk
• İnternet bağımlılığı
• Sosyal kaygı
• Hemşirelik

References

1. 1. M. Çiftdemir. Cervical Spine Injuries. J Turk Spinal Surg 2007;18(4):43-50. 2007;18(4):43-50.
2. 2. S. Çağlı. Spinal Cord and Spine Anatomy. Basic Neurosurgery. 2010;81-90.
3. 3. Panjabi M, Dvorak J, Crisco J, 3rd, Oda T, Hilibrand A, Grob D. Flexion, extension, and lateral bending of the upper cervical spine in response to alar ligament transections. J Spinal Disord. 1991;4(2):157-67. doi:10.1097/00002517-199106000-00005
4. 4. Pryputniewicz DM, Hadley MN. Axis fractures. Neurosurgery. 2010;66(3 Suppl):68-82. doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000366118.21964.A8
5. 5. da Corte FC, Neves N. Cervical spine instability in rheumatoid arthritis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2014;24 Suppl 1:S83-91. doi:10.1007/s00590-013-1258-2
6. 6. Huang DG, Hao DJ, He BR, et al. Posterior atlantoaxial fixation: a review of all techniques. Spine J. 2015;15(10):2271-81. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2015.07.008
7. 7. Kalaycı M KK. Surgical Approaches and Fixation Methods to the Upper Cervical Spine. Basic Neurosurgery. Turkish Neurosurgery Association Publications; 2010;1373-90.
8. 8. Joaquim AF, Ghizoni E, Rubino PA, et al. Lateral mass screw fixation of the atlas: surgical technique and anatomy. World Neurosurg. 2010;74(2-3):359-62. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2010.05.010

9. 9. Harms J MR. Posterior C1-C2 fusion with polyaxial screw and rod fixation. Spine. 2001;Nov 15;26(22):2467-71. doi:10.1097/00007632-200111150-00014.
10. 10. Yoshida M, Neo M, Fujibayashi S, Nakamura T. Comparison of the anatomical risk for vertebral artery injury associated with the C2-pedicle screw and atlantoaxial transarticular screw. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(15):E513-7. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000224516.29747.52
11. 11. Morishima N, Ohota K, Miura Y. The influences of Halo-vest fixation and cervical hyperextension on swallowing in healthy volunteers. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(7):E179-82. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000157475.47514.75
12. 12. Jain VK, Behari S. Management of congenital atlanto-axial dislocation: some lessons learnt. Neurol India. 2002;50(4):386-97.
13. 13. Yuan B, Zhou S, Chen X, Wang Z, Liu W, Jia L. Gallie technique versus atlantoaxial screw-rod constructs in the treatment of atlantoaxial sagittal instability: a retrospective study of 49 patients. J Orthop Surg Res. 2017;12(1):105. doi:10.1186/s13018-017-0607-y
14. 14. Jeanneret B, Magerl F. Primary posterior fusion C1/2 in odontoid fractures: indications, technique, and results of transarticular screw fixation. J Spinal Disord. 1992;5(4):464-75. doi:10.1097/00002517-199212000-00012
15. 15. Wright NM, Lauryssen C. Vertebral artery injury in C1-2 transarticular screw fixation: results of a survey of the AANS/CNS section on disorders of the spine and peripheral nerves. American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons. J Neurosurg. 1998;88(4):634-40. doi:10.3171/jns.1998.88.4.0634
16. 16. Lee SH, Kim ES, Sung JK, Park YM, Eoh W. Clinical and radiological comparison of treatment of atlantoaxial instability by posterior C1-C2 transarticular screw fixation or C1 lateral mass-C2 pedicle screw fixation. J Clin Neurosci. 2010;17(7):886-92. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2009.10.008
17. 17. Bourdillon P, Perrin G, Lucas F, Debarge R, Barrey C. C1-C2 stabilization by Harms arthrodesis: indications, technique, complications and outcomes in a prospective 26-case series. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014;100(2):221-7. doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2013.09.019
18. 18. Jeon SW, Jeong JH, Choi GH, Moon SM, Hwang HS, Choi SK. Clinical outcome of posterior fixation of the C1 lateral mass and C2 pedicle by polyaxial screw and rod. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2012;114(6):539-44. doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2011.11.001
19. 19. Melcher RP, Puttlitz CM, Kleinstueck FS, Lotz JC, Harms J, Bradford DS. Biomechanical testing of posterior atlantoaxial fixation techniques. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2002;27(22):2435-40. doi:10.1097/00007632-200211150-00004
20. 20. Buchmann N, Schweizer C, Kirschke JS, et al. C1-C2 posterior screw fixation in atlantoaxial fractures revisited: technical update based on 127 cases. Eur Spine J. 2020;29(5):1036-1042. doi:10.1007/s00586-019-06244-2
21. 21. Yanni DS, Perin NI. Fixation of the axis. Neurosurgery. 2010;66(3 Suppl):147-52. doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000365743.16893.EA
22. 22. Bransford RJ, Freeborn MA, Russo AJ, et al. Accuracy and complications associated with posterior C1 screw fixation techniques: a radiographic and clinical assessment. Spine J. 2012;12(3):231-8. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2012.02.011
23. 23. Ghaith AK, Yolcu YU, Alvi MA, et al. Rate and Characteristics of Vertebral Artery Injury Following C1-C2 Posterior Cervical Fusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. World Neurosurg. 2021;148:118-126. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2020.12.165
24. 24. Klepinowski T, Limanowka B, Sagan L. Management of post-traumatic craniovertebral junction dislocation: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis of casereports. Neurosurg Rev. 2021;44(3):1391-1400. doi:10.1007/s10143-020-01366-4
25. 25. Patel AA, Lindsey R, Bessey JT, Chapman J, Rampersaud R, Spine Trauma Study G. Surgical treatment of unstable type II odontoid fractures in skeletally mature individuals. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(21 Suppl):S209-18. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181f32ca5
26. 26. Hitti FL, Hudgins ED, Chen HI, Malhotra NR, Zager EL, Schuster JM. Intraoperative Navigation Is Associated with Reduced Blood Loss During C1-C2 Posterior Cervical Fixation. World Neurosurg. 2017;107:574-578. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2017.08.051
27. 27. Elliott RE, Tanweer O, Smith ML, Frempong-Boadu A. Impact of Starting Point and Bicortical Purchase of C1 Lateral Mass Screws on Atlantoaxial Fusion: Meta-Analysis and Review of the Literature. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015;28(7):242-53. doi:10.1097/BSD.0b013e31828ffc97
28. 28. Xie Y, Li Z, Tang H, Li M, Guan Z. Posterior C1 lateral mass and C2 pedicle screw internal fixation for atlantoaxial instability. J Clin Neurosci. 2009;16(12):1592-4. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2009.03.026