Violence against healthcare workers is a growing occupational and public health concern worldwide. Recent evidence suggests that digital health-related behaviors and psychological vulnerabilities may influence individuals’ attitudes toward violence in healthcare settings.
Objective
This study aimed to examine the effects of cyberchondria, health anxiety, and exposure to phubbing on attitudes toward violence against healthcare workers in Turkey.
Methods
A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among 1018 adults aged 18 and above in Turkey. Measures included the Cyberchondria Severity Scale, Health Anxiety Inventory, General Exposure to Phubbing Scale, and Attitudes Towards Violence Against Healthcare Workers Scale. Structural validity was evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in AMOS, while internal consistency was assessed through Cronbach's α and composite reliability (CR). Hypotheses were tested using linear regression. Direct and indirect effects were further examined through structural equation modeling (SEM) with bootstrapping.
Results
Cyberchondria, health anxiety, and exposure to phubbing were positively associated with attitudes toward violence against healthcare workers. Phubbing influenced violent attitudes directly (β = .155, p < .001; f2 ≈ 0.03) and indirectly through health anxiety (β = .388, p < .001; f2 ≈ 0.20) and cyberchondria (β = .259, p < .001; f2 ≈ 0.08), supporting Hypotheses 1–3, while the structural equation model supported Hypothesis 4.
Conclusion
The results highlight the role of digital behaviors and health-related psychological factors in shaping violent attitudes, emphasizing the need for digital awareness programs, health communication training, and policies aimed at preventing workplace violence.
ÇamcıOKutluY. Kocaeli’nde Sağlık Çalışanlarına Yönelik İşyeri Şiddetinin Belirlenmesi. Psikiyatri Hemşireliği Dergisi2011; 2: 9–16.
2.
AkcaNKayaMSönmezS. Pandemi Döneminin Sağlık Çalışanına Yönelik Şiddet Olaylarına Etkisi: yazılı Basın Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Dicle Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi2022; 12: 178–191.
3.
ElliottPP. Violence in health care. Nurs Manage1997; 28: 38–42.
4.
O’BrienCJvan ZundertAABarachPR. The growing burden of workplace violence against healthcare workers: trends in prevalence, risk factors, consequences, and prevention–a narrative review. EClinicalMedicine2024; 72: 102641.
5.
KolutekRErkutluHChafraJ. Workplace violence and nurses’ psychological well-being: the mediating role of burnout and the moderating role of psychological resilience. Arch Psychiatr Nurs2024; 53: 177–183.
6.
AyrancıÜYenilmezÇGünayY, et al.Çeşitli Sağlık Kurumlarında ve Sağlık Meslek Gruplarında Şiddete Uğrama Sıklığı. Anadolu Psikiyatri Derg2002; 3: 147–154.
7.
Shafran-TikvaSChinitzDSternZ, et al.Violence against physicians and nurses in a hospital: how does it happen? A mixed-methods study. Isr J Health Policy Res2017; 6: 1–12.
8.
AgbornuFMKBoafoIMOfeiAMA. Effects of workplace violence on the quality of care by nurses: a study of the Volta Region of Ghana. Int J Africa Nurs Sci2022; 16: 100421.
9.
KharelS. A historic ordinance against violence to health workers of Nepal. Lancet Reg Health - Southeast Asia2022; 3: 100037.
AsaokaHSasakiNKurodaR, et al.Workplace bullying and patient aggression related to COVID-19 and its association with psychological distress among health care professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic in Japan. Tohoku J Exp Med2021; 255: 283–289.
13.
ChiricoFAfolabiAIlesanmiO, et al.Workplace violence against healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. J Health Soc Sci2022; 7: 14–35.
14.
ZhangSZhaoZZhangH, et al.Workplace violence against healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res2023; 30: 74838–74852.
15.
MentoCPandolfoGSpatariG, et al.The impact of workplace violence on healthcare workers during and after the COVID-19 outbreak. Public Health Pract2025; 9: 100572.
16.
LiuRLiYAnY, et al.Workplace violence against frontline clinicians in emergency departments during the COVID-19 pandemic. PeerJ2021; 9: e12459.
17.
BrigoFZaboliARellaE, et al.The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on temporal trends of workplace violence against healthcare workers in the emergency department. Health Policy2022; 126: 1110–1116.
18.
SpencerCSitarzJFouseJ, et al.Nurses’ rationale for underreporting of patient and visitor perpetrated workplace violence: a systematic review. BMC Nurs2023; 22: 134.
19.
Ansari BaigLShaikhSPolkowskiM, et al.Violence against health care providers: a mixed-methods study from Karachi, Pakistan. J Emerg Med2018; 54: 566.
AlanA. Aile Hekimliği Polikliniği İle Acil Servis Yeşil Alana Başvuran Hasta Ve Yakınkarının Sağlıkta Şiddete Yönelik Tutum Ve Davranışlarının Karşılaştırılması. Aile Hekimliği Kliniği, Tıpta Uzmanlık Tezi: Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi, 2021.
22.
StarcevicVBerleD. Cyberchondria: towards a better understanding of excessive health-related internet use. Expert Rev Neurother2013; 13: 205–213.
23.
EngelGL. The biopsychosocial model and the education of health professionals. Annalsof. New York Acad Sci1978; 310: 169–181.
24.
AndersonCABushmanBJ. Human aggression. Annu Rev Psychol2002; 53: 27–51.
25.
LazarusRFolkmanS. Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer, 1984.
26.
AbramowitzJSDeaconBJValentinerDP. The short health anxiety inventory: Psychometric properties and construct validity in a non-clinical sample. Cognit Ther Res2007; 31: 871–883.
27.
LinSFabrisMALongobardiC, et al. The association between social media addiction and aggressive behaviors: a longitudinal and gender-specific analysis. J Adolesc2025; 97: 798–807.
28.
MisraSChengLGenevieJ, et al.The iPhone effect: the quality of in-person social interactions in the presence of mobile devices. Environ Behav2016; 48: 275–298.
29.
TunaDCMarakoğluKKörezMK. Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Siberkondri ve Anksiyete Düzeyleri ve İlişkili Faktörler: kesitsel Bir Çalışma. Türk Aile Hek Derg2023; 27: 36–44.
30.
ŞahanSKaçmazE. Searching for health information on the internet; determining the relationship between nurses’ cyberchondria levels, health anxiety, and effective factors. Mediterr Nurs Midwifery2024; 4: 159–165.
31.
StarcevicVAboujaoudeE. Cyberchondria, cyberbullying, cybersuicide, cybersex: “new” psychopathologies for the 21st century?World Psychiatry2015; 14: 97–100.
32.
AsmundsonGJGTaylorS. How health anxiety influences responses to viral outbreaks like COVID-19: What all decision-makers, health authorities, and health care professionals need to know. J Anxiety Disord2020; 71: 102211.
33.
Yazgan-İnançBYerlikayaEE. Kişilik kuramları.16. Baskı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.2016.
34.
BerkowitzL. Frustration-aggression hypothesis: examination and reformulation. Psychol Bull1989; 106: 59–73.
35.
KarapıçakÖAslanSUtkuÇ. Panik Bozukluğu, Somatizasyon Bozukluğu ve Hipokondriaziste Sağlık Kaygısı. Bilişsel Davranışçı Psikoterapi ve Araştırmalar Dergisi2012; 1: 43–51.
36.
ScoglioAAZhuYLawnRB, et al.Intimate partner violence, mental health symptoms, and modifiable health factors in women during the COVID-19 pandemic in the US. JAMA Netw Open2023; 6: e232977–e232977.
37.
AmbrosiniFTruzoliRVismaraM, et al.The effect of cyberchondria on anxiety, depression and quality of life during COVID-19: the mediational role of obsessive-compulsive symptoms and internet addiction. Heliyon2022; 8: e09437.
38.
Abeele MV. The social consequences of phubbing. The Oxford handbook of mobile communication and society 2020, pp.158–174.
39.
BaumeisterFCTiceDM. Anxiety and social exclusion. J Soc Clin Psychol1990; 9: 165–195.
40.
KaradağETosuntaşŞBErzenE, et al.The virtual world’s current addiction: phubbing. Addıcta: Turk J Addıct2016; 3: 223–269.
41.
AydoğduFÇevikÖ. Okul Psikolojik Danışmanlarının Sosyotelist Davranışlarının, Sosyotelizme Maruz Kalma ve Yalnızlık Düzeyleri Üzerindeki Etkisinin İncelenmesi. Humanist Perspect2020; 2: 219–229.
42.
AykaçSYıldırımŞ. Gelişen dünyada nomofobi ve sosyotelist olma-sosyotelizme maruz kalmanın etkileri. Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi2021; 21: 243–256.
43.
RobertsJADavidME. My life has become a major distraction from my cell phone: partner phubbing and relationship satisfaction among romantic partners. Comput Human Behav2016; 54: 134–141.
44.
BüyükbodurAÇ. İntihar girişimleri ve retrospektif sosyal inceleme. Sosyal Çalışma Dergisi2019; 3: 28–46.
45.
YazıcıoğluFErdoğanS. SPSS applied scientific research methods. Ankara: Detay Publishing, 2004.
46.
SöylerSBiçerİÇavmakD. Siberkondri Ciddiyeti Ölçeği Kısa Formu (CSS-12) Türkçe Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. In: KıraçRUyarS (eds) Davranışsal Boyutları ile Sağlık. Ankara: Nobel Bilimsel Eserler, 2021, pp.302.
47.
AydemirÖKırpınarİSatıT, et al.Sağlık Anksiyetesi Ölçeği’nin Türkçe için Güvenilirlik ve Geçerlilik Çalışması. Nöropsikiyatri Arşivi2013; 50: 325–331.
48.
Orhan GöksunD. Sosyotelist Olma ve Sosyotelizme Maruz Kalma Ölçeklerinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi2019; 21: 657–671.
49.
TabachnickBGFidellLS. Using multivariate statistics. 6th ed. Boston: Pearson, 2013.
50.
KalaycıŞ. SPSS Uygulamalı Çok Değişkenli İstatistik Teknikleri. Ankara: Dinamik Akademi Yayınları, 2017.
51.
GeorgeDMalleryM. SPSS for windows step by step: a simple guide and reference. Boston: Pearson, 2010.
SansakornPMushtaqueIAwais-E-YazdanM, et al.The relationship between cyberchondria and health anxiety and the moderating role of health literacy among the Pakistani public. Int J Environ Res Public Health2024; 21: 1168.
54.
PodsakoffPMMackenzieSBPodsakoffNP, et al.Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol2003; 88: 879–903.
55.
BahçecitaparMAktaşS. Çoklu doğrusal bağlantı durumunda doğrusal karma modelin kullanımı ve bir uygulama. Sakarya Univ J Sci2017; 21: 1349–1359.
56.
YaşlıoğluM. Sosyal bilimlerde Faktör analizi ve geçerlilik: keşfedici ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör analizlerinin kullanılması. İstanbul Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi2017; 46: 74–85.
57.
ÇapıkC. Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışmalarında Doğrulayıcı Faktör analizinin kullanımı. Anadolu Hemşirelik ve Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi2014; 17: 196–205.
58.
UzunsakalEYıldızD. Alan Araştırmalarında Güvenilirlik Testlerinin Karşılaştırılması Ve Tarımsal Veriler Üzerine Bir Uygulama. Uygulamalı Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi2018; 2: 14–28.
59.
DimitrovDM. Testing for factorial invariance in the context of construct validation. Meas Eval Couns Dev2010; 43: 121–149.
60.
ÇakirFS. Kısmi en küçük kareler yapısal eşitlik modellemesi (PLS-SEM) ve bir uygulama. Sosyal Araştırmalar ve Davranış Bilimleri2019; 5: 111–128.
61.
Haji-OthmanYYusuffMSS. Assessing reliability and validity of attitude construct using partial least squares structural equation modeling. Int J Acad Res Bus Soc Sci2022; 12: 378–385.
62.
FornellCLarkerDF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res1981; 18: 39–50.
63.
DuXWitthöftMZhangT, et al. Interpretation bias in health anxiety: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychol Med2023; 53: 34–45.
64.
MontgomeryDCPeckEAViningGG. Introduction to linear regression analysis. 2021.
65.
UllmanJBBentlerPM. Structural equation modeling. 2nd ed. Handbook of Psychology, 2012.
66.
Kuşcu ŞahinFNYorulmazM. Sağlık Çalışanlarına Yönelen Şiddetin Psiko-Dijital Anatomisi: Siberkondri, Sosyotelizme Maruz Kalma ve Sağlık Kaygısı Üzerine Bir İnceleme. In: BilgiliA (ed.) Sağlık Yönetiminde Özel Güncel Konular. Ankara: Bidge Yayınları, 2024, pp.96–130.
67.
GioiaFBoursierV. What does predict cyberchondria? Evidence from a sample of women. J Psychol Psychother Res2020; 7: 68–75.
68.
VismaraMCaricasoleVStarcevicV, et al.Is cyberchondria a new transdiagnostic digital compulsive syndrome? A systematic review of the evidence. Compr Psychiatry2020; 99: 152167.
69.
ChengCLiAYL. Internet addiction prevalence and quality of (real) life: a meta-analysis of 31 nations across seven world regions. Cyberpsychol Behav Sı-Ocial Netw2014; 17: 755–760.
70.
FrackowiakMHilpertPRussellPS. Partner’s perception of phubbing is more relevant than the behavior itself: a daily diary study. Comput Human Behav2022; 134: 107323.
71.
AfdalAAlizamarAIfdilI, et al.An analysis of phubbing behaviour: preliminary research from counseling perspective.
72.
McDanielBGalovanADrouinM. Daily technoference, technology use during couple leisure time, and relationship quality. Media Psychol2021; 24: 637–665.
73.
XuCXieX. Put down the phone and accompany me: how parental phubbing undermines prosocial behavior of early adolescents. Child Youth Serv Rev2023; 149: 106958.
74.
JiangYShuSLinL, et al.Does parental phubbing increase the risk of adolescent cyberbullying and cyber victimization? The role of social anxiety and self-control. Child Youth Serv Rev2024; 157: 107429.
75.
KaramanHBArslanC. The mediating role of social media addiction and phubbing in basic psychological needs in relationships and relationship satisfaction. Sec Media Psychol2024; 15: 1–11.
76.
HooperDCoughlanJMullenM. Evaluating model fit: a synthesis of the structural equation modelling literature. In: Brown A (ed) 7th European Conference on research methodology for business and management studies. London: Academic Publishing Limited, 2008, pp.195–200.
