Skip to main content

Table 1 Family characteristics of the study population of 5122 adolescents in Shanghai

From: Parent-adolescent interaction and risk of adolescent internet addiction: a population-based study in Shanghai

Variables

N (%)

Prevalence of Internet use (%)a

Total scoresb

Prevalence of AIA (%)c,d

Paternal education (missing 23)

 

p <0.001

p <0.001

p =0.01

Illiteracy and elementary

101 (2.0%)

84.2% (85/101)

112.3 ± 53.7

9.9% (10/101)

Junior high school

1115 (21.8%)

92.8% (1035/1115)

116.9 ± 43.3

8.7% (97/1115)

Senior high school

2362 (46.1%)

94.9% (2242/2362)

122.8 ± 39.1

10.0% (235/2362)

University-level and beyond

1521 (29.7%)

93.6% (1424/1521)

117.4 ± 40.5

6.8% (104/1521)

Maternal education (missing 26)

 

p =0.002

p <0.001

p =0.001

Illiteracy and elementary

147 (2.9%)

91.2% (134/147)

110.8 ± 44.0

4.1% (6/147)

Junior high school

1215 (23.7%)

92.2% (1120/1215)

116.4 ± 43.6

8.7% (106/1215)

Senior high school

2327 (45.4%)

94.8% (2206/2327)

123.2 ± 39.5

10.3% (239/2327)

University-level and beyond

1407 (27.5%)

94.0% (1323/1407)

117.6 ± 40.0

6.9% (97/1407)

Family structure (missing 0)

 

p =0.22

p =0.01

p =0.01

Nuclear family

3380 (66.0%)

93.5% (3158/3380)

118.9 ± 41.2

8.5% (288/3380)

Three-generation family

1069 (20.9%)

95.0% (1016/1069)

118.9 ± 38.9

7.5% (80/1069)

Single parent family

357 (7.0%)

93.6% (334/357)

124.3 ± 44.0

13.2% (47/357)

Left-behind adolescents

181 (3.5%)

93.9% (170/181)

124.7 ± 43.5

12.2% (22/181)

Weekend parents

135 (2.6%)

96.3% (130/135)

126.8 ± 35.1

9.6% (13/135)

Parental marriage (missing 4)

 

p =0.23

p =0.003

p =0.004

Married & together

4477 (87.4%)

93.9% (4202/4477)

119.0 ± 40.5

8.3% (370/4477)

Married-but-separated

81 (1.6%)

93.8% (76/81)

132.5 ± 44.2

17.3% (14/81)

Divorced

360 (7.0%)

93.6% (337/360)

124.2 ± 43.5

12.2% (44/360)

Widowed

86 (1.7%)

90.7% (78/86)

117.5 ± 47.1

10.5% (9/86)

Remarried

114 (2.2%)

97.4% (111/114)

125.6 ± 35.9

11.4% (13/114)

Commuter students or not (missing 13)

 

p =0.03

p =0.002

p =0.67

Resident students

451 (8.8%)

96.0% (433/451)

125.2 ± 35.6

9.5% (43/451)

Commuter students

4668 (91.2%)

93.7% (4372/4668)

119.2 ± 41.3

8.7% (407/4668)

Only child (missing 12)

 

p =0.34

p =0.21

p =0.56

Yes

4658 (90.9%)

94.0% (4377/4658)

119.9 ± 40.8

8.9% (413/4658)

No

452 (8.8%)

92.9% (420/452)

117.4 ± 42.0

8.0% (36/452)

Family housing (missing 18)

 

p <0.001

p =0.01

p =0.27

Own

4724 (92.2%)

94.3% (4455/4724)

120.1 ± 40.3

9.0% (423/4724)

Rent

380 (7.4%)

89.0% (338/380)

114.4 ± 46.9

6.8% (26/380)

Having computers at home (missing 3)

 

p <0.001

p <0.001

p <0.001

Yes

4359 (85.1%)

96.5% (4208/4359)

123.9 ± 36.4

9.7% (422/4359)

No

760 (14.8%)

78.6% (597/760)

95.2 ± 54.4

3.7% (28/760)

Having private bedroom (missing 9)

 

p <0.001

p =0.02

p =0.32

Yes

4169 (81.4%)

94.5% (3940/4169)

120.3 ± 39.7

8.6% (360/4169)

No

944 (18.4%)

91.1% (860/944)

116.8 ± 45.6

9.3% (88/944)

  1. aPrevalence of Internet use: the ratio of the number of adolescents using internet to the number of the whole adolescent sample in that group. Chi-square was used to compare the prevalences of internet-use among different levels of the same family background variable.
  2. bTotal scores: total scores of DRM-52 Scale. ANOVA was used to analyze the differences of total scores of DRM-52 Scale among different levels of the same family background variable.
  3. cAIA = adolescent internet addiction.
  4. dPrevalence of AIA: the ratio of the number of internet-addicted adolescents to the number of the whole adolescent sample in that group. Chi-square was used to compare the prevalences of AIA among different levels of the same family background variable.