Nomophobia: What Fear of Being Without Your Phone Means

2 days ago

19 min read

Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 27, 2026 · Editorial Policy

Nomophobia is the term researchers use for fear, anxiety, discomfort, or distress associated with being unable to use or access a mobile phone. The trigger may be leaving the phone at home, losing it, running out of battery, having no signal or internet connection, being unable to communicate, or simply anticipating a period in which the device will be unavailable. The experience can be psychologically real and disruptive, but the label has a precise scientific status: nomophobia is a research construct, not a standalone diagnosis in the major diagnostic classification systems. A 2025 systematic review and meta-analysis explicitly notes that nomophobia is not formally recognized in DSM-5 or ICD-11 and that questionnaire-based prevalence estimates represent self-reported levels of distress rather than clinical diagnoses.

That distinction matters because modern phones are not merely entertainment devices. They are communication tools, maps, payment instruments, authentication devices, work terminals, cameras, calendars, transportation passes, emergency contacts, and gateways to social life. Feeling inconvenienced when a phone is unavailable can therefore be proportionate to a genuine practical problem. Nomophobia becomes a useful research concept when the distress surrounding loss of access is stronger, more persistent, more behaviorally constraining, or more closely tied to repeated checking and avoidance than ordinary inconvenience would suggest.

The best way to understand the construct is therefore not to ask, “How many hours do you use your phone?” Time spent is only one exposure variable. Researchers distinguish duration, frequency, context, content, type of activity, checking patterns, perceived control, emotional dependence, and functional consequences. The same principle applies across digital well-being: a phone can be heavily used without producing marked distress, while a person with lower total use may become unusually anxious when access is interrupted.

What Is Nomophobia? The Short Answer

Nomophobia, often expanded as “no mobile phone phobia,” describes distress connected with being unable to access or use a mobile phone. In research, the construct usually includes several related concerns rather than one simple fear: not being able to communicate, losing connectedness, not being able to access information, and giving up the convenience that a smartphone provides. These dimensions came from the original development and validation study of the Nomophobia Questionnaire (NMP-Q), which used interviews with nine undergraduates and then tested a 20-item questionnaire in 301 undergraduates.

The word “phobia” can make the construct sound more clinically settled than it is. Researchers have proposed phobia-like interpretations, and some studies use language such as fear, anxiety, or separation distress. Yet the current evidence base does not establish nomophobia as an independent psychiatric disorder with universally accepted diagnostic criteria, validated clinical thresholds, a characteristic course, and an established treatment protocol. For readers, the practical translation is simple: nomophobia names a pattern that can be measured and studied; it does not turn ordinary phone reliance into a mental disorder.

Nomophobia Is a Research Construct, Not an Official DSM or ICD Diagnosis

Current review literature is explicit about diagnostic status. The 2025 global meta-analysis states that nomophobia is not formally recognized in DSM-5 or ICD-11. The name therefore should not be used as though it were equivalent to major depressive disorder, panic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, a formally classified specific phobia, or another established diagnosis.

This also means that an NMP-Q score is not a diagnosis. A questionnaire can reliably measure a research construct without proving that the construct is a distinct disorder. Reliability asks whether a scale measures something consistently; diagnostic validity asks a different set of questions about clinical boundaries, impairment, differential diagnosis, course, and whether a threshold meaningfully separates disorder from non-disorder. A 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis of the NMP-Q found excellent pooled internal consistency and support for its four-factor structure across 13 studies involving 15,929 participants. That is evidence for the instrument’s psychometric consistency, not evidence that every person above a numerical cutoff has a psychiatric condition.

The same caution applies to neighboring labels. “Phone addiction” and “smartphone addiction” are common search terms and appear in research scales, but they should not be treated as automatic formal diagnoses. The World Health Organization’s current ICD-11 terminology and classification page for addictive behaviors lists gambling disorder and gaming disorder as named disorders due to addictive behaviors; it does not establish a standalone smartphone-addiction diagnosis. Nomophobia, problematic smartphone use, frequent use, checking habits, and proposed addiction frameworks overlap in some studies, but they are not interchangeable.

What Does Nomophobia Feel Like?

There is no single symptom profile that defines nomophobia clinically. Research questionnaires focus on thoughts and feelings tied to disconnection. A person may worry that they cannot reach family or friends, cannot be reached in an emergency, cannot access messages or information, will miss updates, will lose social connection, or will be unable to use everyday functions that have migrated to the phone. The intensity can range from a mild preference to stay connected to marked distress when separation becomes real or anticipated.

Behavior can matter as much as subjective fear. Some people organize routines to prevent disconnection: repeatedly checking battery percentage, signal, messages, or the physical location of the phone; carrying multiple chargers; avoiding places where phone use is restricted; keeping the device within immediate reach at nearly all times; or feeling compelled to restore access as quickly as possible. None of these behaviors proves a disorder on its own. A power bank can be sensible preparation for travel. Frequent checking can reflect work demands. What matters psychologically is the combination of context, perceived necessity, distress, loss of flexibility, and functional interference.

Physical anxiety sensations can also occur during acute separation or anticipated loss of access, but they are nonspecific. A racing heart, tension, restlessness, sweating, or difficulty concentrating can occur in many forms of anxiety and stress. If those symptoms are intense, recurrent, or occur in situations beyond phone separation, they deserve assessment on their own terms rather than being assumed to prove nomophobia.

The Four Core Dimensions of the NMP-Q

The most influential measurement model comes from Yildirim and Correia’s 2015 NMP-Q study. It identified four dimensions that help explain why losing phone access can feel threatening. Later psychometric synthesis has continued to support this four-factor organization.

1. Not Being Able to Communicate

This dimension concerns losing the ability to contact other people or be contacted. The psychological meaning can include safety, coordination, caregiving, work availability, and reassurance that important relationships remain reachable. In modern life, some of this concern is realistic: phones are genuine communication infrastructure. The research question is how much distress remains after the practical stakes are taken into account.

2. Losing Connectedness

Connectedness refers to the continuous social and digital link that smartphones make possible. The discomfort may involve being cut off from ongoing conversations, online identity, social updates, groups, or a felt sense of participation. This dimension can overlap with fear of missing out, but the two constructs are not identical. FOMO concerns apprehension that rewarding experiences are happening elsewhere without you; nomophobia centers more directly on loss of access to the device and the connections it enables.

3. Not Being Able to Access Information

Smartphones provide immediate search, navigation, news, schedules, email, banking information, health portals, and countless other forms of information. Losing access can create uncertainty. For some people, the phone functions as an external organizer or reassurance source, so the absence of instant information may feel disproportionately uncomfortable.

4. Giving Up Convenience

The fourth dimension captures the practical friction of functioning without the device. A dead battery can mean no map, ticket, ride-hailing app, payment wallet, camera, calendar, two-factor authentication code, or immediate entertainment. This dimension is especially important because it shows why nomophobia cannot be reduced to irrational fear. Smartphones solve real problems. A psychologically useful analysis separates realistic inconvenience from a level of distress or behavioral rigidity that exceeds the situation.

How Is Nomophobia Measured?

The 20-item Nomophobia Questionnaire is the dominant research tool. The original NMP-Q uses a seven-point response scale and produces a total score from 20 to 140, with higher scores indicating more nomophobia-related distress. Research papers often divide scores into conventional bands described as absent, mild, moderate, or severe. Those labels are research categories, not medical diagnoses.

This distinction is crucial when reading prevalence statistics. A “moderate nomophobia” category in a study usually means that a participant’s questionnaire total fell inside a predefined score range. It does not mean that a clinician conducted a diagnostic interview and identified a moderate psychiatric disorder. The 2021 systematic review of 108 studies found very large variation in reported prevalence and highlighted differences in assessment criteria. Later reviews have improved synthesis, but heterogeneity remains substantial.

Psychometric evidence is stronger than it was when the scale was introduced. The 2023 NMP-Q systematic review reported pooled internal consistency of 0.93 for the total score, with strong values for the four subscales, and found that the four-factor structure fit the accumulated evidence well. This supports the NMP-Q as a useful research measure. It still does not supply a universally accepted clinical diagnosis or determine what treatment, if any, a particular person needs.

How Common Is Nomophobia?

Nomophobia scores are common in survey research, especially in samples of students and young adults. The 2025 global systematic review and meta-analysis included 43 studies with 36,656 participants from 18 countries. Using validated self-report instruments, primarily the NMP-Q, it reported approximately 26% of participants in a mild range, 51% in a moderate range, and 21% in a severe range. The authors explicitly warned that these figures describe self-reported distress categories rather than clinical diagnoses.

A separate 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis of university students included 28 cross-sectional studies and 11,300 participants, with 23 studies entering the meta-analysis. It estimated mild, moderate, and severe categories at about 24%, 56%, and 17%, respectively, but heterogeneity was very high. Earlier synthesis likewise found major variation between studies and warned that inconsistent measurement and reporting can produce dramatically different prevalence estimates.

The newest evidence reinforces that caution. A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression examined 19 observational studies involving 12,079 university students from 11 countries. The pooled mean NMP-Q score was 75.74, but between-study heterogeneity was extreme (I² = 99.5%). Mean age and sex were not significantly associated with severity in the meta-regression, and the country-income finding explained only a modest share of the variation. The authors characterized those moderator results as exploratory and not suitable for causal or individual-level interpretation.

So the strongest answer to “How common is nomophobia?” is not a single universal percentage. Elevated questionnaire scores are frequently reported, particularly in student and young-adult samples, but estimates depend heavily on sample, country, instrument, scoring approach, and study design. Population prevalence of a formal disorder cannot be inferred because no such standalone diagnosis is being established by these surveys.

Who Is More Likely to Report Nomophobia?

Many studies concentrate on adolescents, university students, health-profession students, and young adults, which makes younger populations highly visible in the literature. The 2020 systematic literature review found that nomophobia research was still dominated by descriptive, nonexperimental, cross-sectional studies, commonly in adolescents and university students. That sampling pattern limits how confidently findings can be generalized to the full adult population.

Older reviews sometimes reported higher scores among women or younger participants, but the more recent 2026 university-student meta-regression did not find statistically significant differences by sex or a significant linear association with mean age. This is a useful example of why demographic claims should remain evidence-sensitive: a pattern in one set of studies can weaken when newer studies, different populations, or meta-analytic methods are added.

Why Does Nomophobia Happen?

There is no single established cause. Nomophobia is best understood as the product of several interacting layers: what the phone actually does for a person, how social communication is organized, individual differences in anxiety and uncertainty, learned checking habits, environmental expectations, and the degree to which alternative ways of completing important tasks remain available. Most evidence is correlational, so mechanisms should be treated as plausible contributors rather than a proven one-way causal chain.

Functional Dependence on the Phone

Phones have absorbed functions that once belonged to separate objects and services. A person who relies on a phone for navigation, banking, work authentication, transportation, family coordination, medical portals, or emergency contact faces a real loss of capability when the device becomes unavailable. Practical dependence can therefore amplify psychological dependence. This is one reason a useful intervention may begin with redundancy—an alternative payment method, offline directions, a remembered or written emergency number—rather than simply demanding more willpower.

Social Connection and Availability

Permanent reachability changes social expectations. Messages can arrive at any time, group conversations continue in the background, and many relationships are partly maintained through digital contact. Losing the phone can therefore feel like losing social access. That can be especially uncomfortable when a person relies on rapid contact for reassurance, belonging, caregiving, or fear reduction. The construct’s communication and connectedness dimensions directly reflect this social layer.

Checking, Cues, and Learned Relief

Repeated checking can become highly automatic. Uncertainty appears—“Did someone message me?”, “How much battery is left?”, “Do I have signal?”—and checking rapidly resolves it. When relief reliably follows checking, the behavior can become easier to repeat. That does not make every check pathological or prove addiction. It describes a basic behavioral pathway through which checking can become habitual and closely tied to anxiety regulation.

Research also finds overlap between nomophobia and problematic forms of phone use. In a large cross-sectional study of 2,838 participants, higher nomophobia scores were positively associated with problematic dependent, prohibited, and dangerous mobile-phone-use dimensions. Because the design was cross-sectional, the study cannot establish whether nomophobia drives problematic use, problematic use intensifies separation anxiety, both reflect shared vulnerabilities, or the relationship is bidirectional.

FOMO, Uncertainty, and Information Access

The fear of missing social updates, being left out of conversations, or not knowing what is happening can make disconnection more difficult. So can a strong preference for immediate information. Yet FOMO and nomophobia remain separable constructs: one concerns missing potentially rewarding experiences, while the other concerns the loss of phone access and what that access enables. They can reinforce one another without being the same psychological phenomenon.

Individual Vulnerability and Context

People differ in baseline anxiety, intolerance of uncertainty, social needs, work demands, family responsibilities, accessibility needs, and how much of daily life is routed through a smartphone. Those differences can change the meaning of separation. A two-hour phone-free period may feel restorative to one person, impractical to another, and highly distressing to a third. Context is therefore part of the phenomenon, not noise that should be ignored.

Nomophobia vs Problematic Smartphone Use, Phone Addiction, FOMO, and Phubbing

Digital-behavior terms are often collapsed into one another in everyday language. Research is clearer when they remain separate.

Nomophobia vs Problematic Smartphone Use

Nomophobia is centered on distress about losing phone access. Problematic smartphone use is a broader research construct concerned with dysregulated use and adverse consequences. A person may score high on nomophobia because being unreachable feels threatening without necessarily spending extreme amounts of time on the phone. Conversely, someone can use a phone in a highly disruptive way without experiencing pronounced separation anxiety.

Nomophobia vs “Phone Addiction”

“Phone addiction” is a popular and research term, not a shortcut to an official smartphone-addiction diagnosis. Some studies use “smartphone addiction” scales, and a 2023 meta-analysis found a positive correlation between nomophobia scores and measures labeled smartphone addiction. That correlation demonstrates overlap between measured constructs; it does not prove that nomophobia is an addiction or that a person with separation anxiety has an addictive disorder.

Nomophobia vs FOMO

FOMO is apprehension that others may be having rewarding experiences from which one is absent. Nomophobia is focused on unavailable phone access. Social media can connect the two: if the phone is the main way a person monitors social information, losing the device can also trigger FOMO. The constructs remain conceptually distinct even when they occur together.

Nomophobia vs Phubbing and Technoference

Nomophobia concerns distress when the phone is unavailable. Phubbing and technoference concern the phone intruding into co-present interaction or relationship processes. Someone may feel strong separation anxiety without frequently phubbing a partner, and someone may interrupt conversations with a phone without feeling intense distress when separated from it. Our evidence review of phubbing and technoference in relationships treats those relationship processes as a separate behavioral question.

Nomophobia, Anxiety, Sleep, and Mental Health

Nomophobia is associated with several psychological and behavioral measures, but association should not be translated into a simple causal claim. The 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis of correlations synthesized 16 studies and found positive associations with anxiety (r = 0.31), measures labeled smartphone addiction (r = 0.39), and insomnia symptoms (r = 0.56). These effect sizes show that higher scores tend to occur together. They do not establish that nomophobia causes an anxiety disorder, causes insomnia, or is caused by smartphone “addiction.”

A three-month longitudinal study of Iranian adolescents adds temporal information: among participants who completed four waves of assessment, nomophobia scores and measures of addictive social-media use were associated with insomnia severity over time. Longitudinal evidence is stronger than a single cross-sectional snapshot for studying temporal relationships, but this design still does not isolate a single causal mechanism. Sleep problems, anxiety, social-media behavior, phone access, and developmental context can influence one another.

For that reason, someone with sleep problems should not assume that nomophobia is the diagnosis or sole cause. Evening device timing, content, arousal, notifications, displacement of sleep, light exposure, work schedules, and existing sleep disorders are different variables. Our article on screen time and sleep covers the digital-use × sleep evidence without turning phone use into a universal explanation for insomnia.

Does High Screen Time Mean You Have Nomophobia?

No. Screen time measures duration; nomophobia measures distress related to disconnection. They can correlate, but they answer different questions. A person may spend many hours on a smartphone because of work, accessibility, navigation, study, family communication, creative activity, or entertainment while remaining comfortable when the device is unavailable. Another person may have relatively modest daily screen time but become highly distressed by the possibility of losing contact.

There is also no universal medical cutoff for acceptable adult smartphone time that diagnoses nomophobia. If your concern is duration rather than separation anxiety, our evidence review of how much screen time is too much for adults explains why context, activity type, timing, displacement, and impairment matter alongside hours.

When Does Phone-Separation Anxiety Become a Meaningful Problem?

The most useful threshold is functional, not merely numerical. Phone-separation anxiety deserves closer attention when it repeatedly interferes with ordinary life: when distress is intense, when a person avoids necessary situations because a phone may be unavailable, when checking repeatedly interrupts work or relationships, when sleep is persistently displaced, when driving or other safety-critical behavior is compromised, or when fear of disconnection narrows daily choices.

Distress also deserves attention when the phone is serving as a constant safety behavior for another problem. Someone may use immediate contact, information searching, or checking to regulate broader anxiety, panic-like sensations, social insecurity, or uncertainty. In those cases, the clinically relevant question may be the broader pattern rather than the nomophobia label itself.

Frequency alone is insufficient. Reaching for a phone dozens of times a day can be habit, occupational necessity, social routine, or a response to notifications. Functional impairment and loss of flexibility provide more meaningful information than raw check counts.

What Can Help With Nomophobia?

Evidence for nomophobia-specific treatment is still limited. There is no universally established treatment protocol for the construct, and digital abstinence should not be presented as a guaranteed cure. A small 2026 randomized controlled trial involving 30 physically active university students with moderate-to-high nomophobia compared standard evening smartphone restriction with a progressive restriction program combined with psychoeducation and slow-paced breathing. The adapted group showed greater improvement on several sleep and pre-sleep outcomes. The sample was very small and specialized, so the study is preliminary rather than a basis for universal treatment rules.

For most people, a sensible approach is to identify what function the phone-related anxiety is serving and make the intervention match that function. The aim is not to prove that you can live without technology. It is to restore flexibility where phone access has become more emotionally or behaviorally controlling than you want.

Start by Separating Practical Risk From Anxiety

List what would genuinely be difficult if your phone were unavailable for an hour, an evening, or a day. Transportation, payment, family contact, work authentication, medication information, safety, and accessibility needs are legitimate constraints. Solve the practical vulnerabilities first when possible: carry an alternative payment method, keep a key phone number somewhere other than the phone, download an offline map, know how to access an essential account another way, or bring a charger when the situation genuinely requires it.

This step matters because treating realistic dependence as irrational can make advice unusable. Once real logistical risks are reduced, the remaining distress becomes easier to observe accurately.

Identify the Specific Trigger

“I need my phone” can mean several different things. You may fear missing an urgent message, being unable to navigate, not knowing what is happening online, losing access to work, being unreachable to family, becoming bored, or simply feeling the discomfort of an interrupted habit. Naming the trigger helps separate communication needs from checking habits, FOMO, safety concerns, and general anxiety.

Reduce Automatic Checking, Not Necessary Use

If the problem is repetitive checking, changing cues may be more useful than imposing a dramatic total ban. Nonessential notifications can be silenced, visually attention-grabbing apps can be moved away from the home screen, and the phone can be placed outside immediate reach during a defined task or conversation. These changes target automaticity while preserving necessary access.

For a broader behavior-change plan, see our guide to reducing screen time without quitting technology. It focuses on goals, environment, routines, and replacement activities rather than treating every minute of screen exposure as equivalent.

Use Gradual, Planned Separation if Separation Itself Is the Problem

If practical needs are covered but being away from the phone still feels disproportionately difficult, brief planned periods without immediate access can help you learn what actually happens. Start with a context that is safe and realistic rather than choosing a high-stakes situation. The purpose is to observe the anxiety curve, the thoughts that appear, and whether the urge to reconnect changes without immediately obeying it.

This is a behavioral strategy, not a claim that every person with nomophobia needs formal exposure therapy. If separation triggers panic-level distress, trauma-related reactions, severe anxiety, or major impairment, a clinician can determine whether an established anxiety condition or another problem better explains the symptoms and whether structured treatment is appropriate.

Avoid Turning Digital Detox Into a Universal Prescription

Temporary abstinence can be useful for some people, neutral for others, and counterproductive when it removes valued connection or necessary functions. Research on digital detox and social-media abstinence is heterogeneous, and outcomes depend on what is stopped, for how long, why, and what replaces it. Our review of digital detox evidence explains why a break from screens or social media should not be sold as an automatic treatment for anxiety, depression, sleep, attention, or well-being.

Treat Sleep or Anxiety Problems as Their Own Problems

If phone separation anxiety coexists with insomnia, panic, generalized worry, depression, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, or another mental-health problem, the established condition should be assessed on its own criteria. A nomophobia score cannot tell you which condition is primary, whether one causes the other, or which intervention is indicated.

What Research Still Cannot Tell Us

The nomophobia literature has expanded rapidly, but several limitations remain structural. First, much of the evidence is observational and self-reported. The 2020 systematic review described a field dominated by descriptive, nonexperimental, cross-sectional studies. Cross-sectional associations are useful for mapping relationships but weak for determining direction of causation.

Second, student samples are overrepresented. University students are easy to recruit and highly connected digitally, but they do not represent all adults, older adults, workers in different occupations, parents, people with disabilities, or communities with different infrastructure. Third, scoring conventions create apparently precise prevalence categories that can be mistaken for diagnostic thresholds. Fourth, technology changes faster than many research cycles: the functions attached to smartphones in 2015 differ from those in 2026, so the practical meaning of being disconnected also changes.

Fifth, intervention evidence remains thin. The existence of a measurable construct and high survey scores does not by itself tell us whether a dedicated disorder category would improve clinical care, which mechanisms are most important, or which interventions are effective for which people. New randomized and longitudinal studies are useful, but the field still needs larger samples, diverse populations, clinically meaningful outcomes, preregistered protocols, and studies that distinguish practical dependence from maladaptive distress.

Frequently Asked Questions About Nomophobia

What is nomophobia?

Nomophobia is a research term for fear, anxiety, discomfort, or distress associated with being unable to access or use a mobile phone. It commonly includes concerns about communication, connectedness, information access, and convenience. The term describes a studied psychological construct rather than an official standalone diagnosis.

Is nomophobia a mental disorder?

Nomophobia is not currently a standalone diagnosis in the major DSM or ICD classification systems. Researchers study it with validated questionnaires and sometimes describe it in phobia-like language, but a research construct, screening score, and formal psychiatric diagnosis are different things.

Is nomophobia the same as a specific phobia?

Not automatically. Some researchers have proposed conceptualizing nomophobia as a situational phobia, but that proposal has not made nomophobia a standalone formal diagnosis. A clinician evaluating severe fear would assess the person’s symptoms, impairment, duration, context, and differential diagnoses using established diagnostic criteria rather than diagnosing from the popular label alone.

Can the NMP-Q diagnose nomophobia?

No. The NMP-Q is a 20-item self-report measure with strong evidence of internal consistency and a replicated four-factor structure. It measures the severity of a research construct. Its score bands should not be interpreted as a medical diagnosis, and a high score cannot determine what treatment a person needs.

Is nomophobia the same as smartphone addiction?

No. Nomophobia centers on distress when access is lost. Research labeled smartphone addiction or problematic smartphone use focuses on dysregulated use, impaired control, or consequences. The constructs correlate in studies, but overlap does not make them identical, and “smartphone addiction” is not automatically an official diagnosis.

Can you have nomophobia without using your phone all day?

Yes. Duration and separation distress are different variables. A person can have modest screen time yet feel strongly anxious when the phone is inaccessible, while another person can have high screen time without marked separation anxiety. Time spent alone cannot diagnose the construct.

Does nomophobia cause anxiety or insomnia?

Studies consistently report associations, and some longitudinal work suggests temporal relationships, but the evidence does not justify a universal one-way causal statement. Higher nomophobia scores correlate with anxiety and insomnia measures, while phone behavior, sleep, social-media use, baseline anxiety, and life context may influence one another.

Should I do a digital detox for nomophobia?

A digital detox is not a universal treatment. A short break may help some people notice habits or reduce cues, but evidence across abstinence studies is mixed and context dependent. If separation itself causes strong anxiety, an abrupt all-or-nothing ban may be less useful than solving practical dependencies and gradually building flexibility.

When should I seek professional help?

Professional help is reasonable when phone-related anxiety is intense, persistent, difficult to control, or meaningfully interferes with sleep, work, school, relationships, travel, or safety; when you avoid necessary situations because phone access might be limited; or when the distress appears to be part of broader anxiety, panic, depression, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, or another mental-health concern. The goal of assessment is to understand the full pattern, not simply to attach the nomophobia label.

References

Al-Mamun, F., Mamun, M. A., Kaggwa, M. M., Mubarak, M., Hossain, M. S., ALmerab, M. M., Muhit, M., Gozal, D., Griffiths, M. D., & Sikder, M. T. (2025). The prevalence of nomophobia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychiatry Research, 349, 116521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2025.116521

Ben Alaya, W., Dhahbi, W., Souissi, M. A., Jebabli, N., Ceylan, H. İ., Ceylan, N. B., Muntean, R. I., & Souissi, N. (2026). Progressive smartphone restriction combined with psychoeducational guidance and pre-sleep autonomic regulation improves sleep efficiency and time-of-day cognitive performance in physically active students with nomophobia: A randomized controlled trial. Life, 16(2), 212. https://doi.org/10.3390/life16020212

Daraj, L. R., AlGhareeb, M., Almutawa, Y. M., Trabelsi, K., & Jahrami, H. (2023). Systematic review and meta-analysis of the correlation coefficients between nomophobia and anxiety, smartphone addiction, and insomnia symptoms. Healthcare, 11(14), 2066. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11142066

Fendel, J. C., Bürkle, J. J., & Schmidt, S. (2025). The relationship between trait mindfulness and problematic usage of the internet, screen time, and nomophobia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 14(2), 590–610. https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2025.00052

Flores-Palacios, R., Onofre-Fernandez, F., Loza-Loza, H., Pajares-Centeno, S., & Copaja-Corzo, C. (2026). Sociodemographic patterns of nomophobia among university students: Systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-026-03209-x

Jahrami, H., Saif, Z., Trabelsi, K., Bragazzi, N. L., & Vitiello, M. V. (2023). Internal consistency and structural validity of the Nomophobia Questionnaire (NMP-Q) and its translations: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Heliyon, 9(4), e15464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e15464

Kaviani, F., Robards, B., Young, K. L., & Koppel, S. (2020). Nomophobia: Is the fear of being without a smartphone associated with problematic use? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(17), 6024. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176024

León-Mejía, A. C., Gutiérrez-Ortega, M., Serrano-Pintado, I., & González-Cabrera, J. (2021). A systematic review on nomophobia prevalence: Surfacing results and standard guidelines for future research. PLOS ONE, 16(5), e0250509. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250509

Lin, C.-Y., Potenza, M. N., Ulander, M., Broström, A., Ohayon, M. M., Chattu, V. K., & Pakpour, A. H. (2021). Longitudinal relationships between nomophobia, addictive use of social media, and insomnia in adolescents. Healthcare, 9(9), 1201. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9091201

Rodríguez-García, A.-M., Moreno-Guerrero, A.-J., & López Belmonte, J. (2020). Nomophobia: An individual's growing fear of being without a smartphone—A systematic literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(2), 580. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17020580

Tuco, K. G., Castro-Diaz, S. D., Soriano-Moreno, D. R., & Benites-Zapata, V. A. (2023). Prevalence of nomophobia in university students: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Healthcare Informatics Research, 29(1), 40–53. https://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2023.29.1.40

World Health Organization. (n.d.). Alcohol, drugs and addictive behaviours: Terminology and classifications. https://www.who.int/teams/mental-health-and-substance-use/alcohol-drugs-and-addictive-behaviours/terminology

Yildirim, C., & Correia, A.-P. (2015). Exploring the dimensions of nomophobia: Development and validation of a self-reported questionnaire. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 130–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.059

Psychological Encyclopedia