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.