Background and aimsMindfulness-based intervention (MBI) has been applied in behavioral addiction studies in recent years. However, few empirical studies using MBI have been conducted for smartphone addiction, which is prevalent among Chinese university students. The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of a group mindfulness-based cognitive-behavioral intervention (GMCI) on smartphone addiction in a sample of Chinese university students.MethodsStudents with smartphone addiction were divided into a control group (n = 29) and an intervention group (n = 41). The students in the intervention group received an 8-week GMCI. Smartphone addiction was evaluated using scores from the Mobile Phone Internet Addiction Scale (MPIAS) and self-reported smartphone use time, which were measured at the baseline (1st week, T1), post-intervention (8th week, T2), the first follow-up (14th week, T3), and the second follow-up (20th week, T4).ResultsTwenty-seven students in each group completed the intervention and the follow-up. Smartphone use time and MPIAS scores significantly decreased from T1 to T3 in the intervention group. Compared with the control group, the intervention group had significantly less smartphone use time at T2, T3, and T4 and significantly lower MPIAS scores at T3.Discussion and conclusionThis pilot study demonstrated that the GMCI could significantly alleviate smartphone addiction among university students.

No abstract

ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess smartphone use time and total screen time among students aged 10–19 in Shanghai, China, and examine their effects on academic stress.MethodsBaseline and follow-up surveys were conducted in December 2017 and December 2018, respectively, using a cohort study design with 1,771 participants. Questionnaire surveys and physical examinations of participants were conducted by trained investigators and professional school physicians, respectively. The self-administered questionnaire mainly covered demographic information, academic stress, smartphone use time, total screen time, and other lifestyle behaviors.ResultsThe average smartphone use time of primary, middle, and high school students was 0.76 ± 0.90, 1.34 ± 1.29, and 2.39 ± 1.66 h/day, respectively; total screen time was 2.60 ± 2.63, 2.65 ± 3.39, and 3.52 ± 2.7 h/day, respectively (P < 0.001). The academic stress scores of primary, middle, and high school students were 9.25 ± 3.96, 11.97 ± 4.58, and 15.06 ± 5.10 (out of 30), respectively. The smartphone use time and total screen time were positively associated with academic stress score, with β values of 0.307 (95% CI: 0.164–0.450) and 0.171 (95% CI: 0.088–0.255), respectively. The longer the smartphone use time and total screen time, the higher the risk of abnormal academic stress, with OR values of 1.199 (95% CI: 1.103–1.303) and 1.104 (95% CI: 1.056–1.154), respectively. After stratifying by grade group, positive associations between smartphone use time or total screen time and abnormal academic stress were observed in primary and middle school students; for high school students; however, only smartphone use time had a positive association.ConclusionsThis study confirmed that the academic stress is widespread among students aged 10–19 in Shanghai, China. From a public health perspective, smartphone use time and total screen time should therefore be restricted for reducing academic stress and preventing related problems among adolescents in Shanghai, China, in school, family, and other environments.

No abstract

Background We conducted a real-world analysis of the effectiveness of different antibiotic regimens for bloodstream infections (BSIs) caused by carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacilli (CR-GNB) in a Chinese population. Methods A retrospective observational study was conducted between January 2010 and December 2017. Patients with BSIs caused by CR-GNB confirmed by in vitro susceptibility tests were enrolled, and patient medical record data on antimicrobial agents and microbiological and clinical outcomes were extracted. Results A total of 175 individuals were included; 127 individuals (72.6%) received combination therapy (two or more antibiotics), while 48 individuals (27.4%) received monotherapy (single antibiotic). The all-cause 28-day mortality was 20.0%. Treatment success or presumed success rates were very similar between the monotherapy and combination therapy groups (58.3% versus 59.1%; P = 0.931). Combination therapy had a higher success rate trend than monotherapy in septic shock patients (40.7% versus 18.2%; P = 0.268). Improved therapeutic effects were observed in the active agent-containing group, although the differences were not significant. Conclusion Combination therapy likely has better therapeutic effects on critical BSIs caused by CR-GNB than monotherapy. Choosing a proper active agent in an antimicrobial regime is relatively crucial to the ultimate treatment outcome.