## 2 Materials and Methods
### Risk of Bias Assessment  
We have incorporated the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool to evaluate the methodological rigor and potential biases in the included studies. ROBIS is a structured, transparent, and widely accepted tool specifically designed to assess the risk of bias in systematic reviews. Accordingly, we systematically examined each study against four key domains: study eligibility criteria, identification and selection of studies, data collection and appraisal, and synthesis and findings. Subsequently,we determined whether each study demonstrated a low, high, or unclear risk of bias, ensuring a thorough assessment of methodological quality. Implementing ROBIS helps mitigate key biases, such as publication bias and methodological heterogeneity, by critically appraising the comprehensiveness of search strategies, inclusion criteria, and data synthesis methods. This ensures that only well-conducted reviews contribute to the synthesized findings, enhancing the reliability and validity of our conclusions. Details of the risk of bias assessment are presented in Table 2.  
Upon evaluating the included studies, we found that the risk of bias was low for 17 reviews and high for 8 reviews. Several factors contributed to these assessments, with the most prominent being the absence of well-defined inclusion criteria, which hindered the transparency of the study selection process. In addition, a number of reviews had restricted sample sizes or focused on overly specific or targeted populations, which could limit the generalizability of the findings. Furthermore, many reviews lacked fully detailed or clearly reported methodologies, making it difficult to assess the rigor and reproducibility of the results. These issues collectively contribute to a higher risk of bias, particularly in reviews where methodological transparency and comprehensive reporting were lacking. Although eight of the selected studies were assessed as having a high risk of bias based on the ROBIS tool, they were included in our analysis due to their valuable contributions to the field. Several of these studies employed rigorous methodologies, robust data collection techniques, or examined large and diverse populations, making their findings significant despite their classification. For instance, Study [29] was categorized as high risk due to its focus on a specific population (employees in US Health Care Institutions); however, its extensive sample size and well-structured data collection methods made it a valuable source of information (more than 2.9 million simulated emails were sent to employees at six hospitals). Similarly, Study [32], while limited in sample size and scope, provided critical insights that could inform future research directions. Such an insight is one of the conclusions of the study, where it is mentioned that the use of mobile devices was relatively high during the tests. Thus, despite their high-risk classification, these studies offer substantial contributions to the understanding of the topic and serve as valuable case studies for future research in the field. Their methodological strengths, including comprehensive data collection strategies