50. Research on the impact of youth labor education on internet addiction patients

Abstract Background Adolescent internet addiction has become a global public health issue. Existing intervention methods mostly focus on psychological and medical aspects, while research on preventive and developmental interventions derived from daily educational activities is relatively lacking. Labor education emphasizes practical experience and value creation, and may combat internet addiction by occupying time, reshaping behavior patterns, and enhancing self-efficacy. The research aims to empirically test the intervention effect of structured labor education curriculum on adolescent internet addiction, in order to explore a feasible and low-cost school-based intervention path. Methods The study adopted a randomized controlled trial design and used the Internet Addiction Test (IAT) as the screening scale. 80 adolescents who meet the diagnostic criteria for internet addiction (IAT score ≥ 50) were selected from a certain high school and randomly divided into an experimental group (n = 40) and a control group (n = 40). The experimental group received a structured labor education course intervention lasting 12 weeks, twice a week, with each session lasting 90 minutes. The course content included three types of activities: life skills, productive labor, and volunteer service, emphasizing practical participation, cooperation, and reflection. The control group did not receive any specific intervention during this period and maintained regular learning and life. The study measured two groups of participants using IAT and Self Control Scale (SCS) at three time points: before intervention, immediately after intervention, and 3 months after intervention (follow-up). Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS 25.0, with the main method being repeated measures analysis of variance. Results After intervention, the level of internet addiction in the experimental group significantly decreased. The IAT total score decreased from 58.3 ± 5.1 before intervention to 45.2 ± 6.8 after intervention, significantly lower than the control group's 56.1 ± 5.3 during the same period (interaction effect F = 32.15, p