No abstract

Online gaming has greatly increased in popularity in recent years, and with this has come a multiplicity of problems due to excessive involvement in gaming. Gaming disorder, both online and offline, has been defined for the first time in the draft of 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). National surveys have shown prevalence rates of gaming disorder/addiction of 10%–15% among young people in several Asian countries and of 1%–10% in their counterparts in some Western countries. Several diseases related to excessive gaming are now recognized, and clinics are being established to respond to individual, family, and community concerns, but many cases remain hidden. Gaming disorder shares many features with addictions due to psychoactive substances and with gambling disorder, and functional neuroimaging shows that similar areas of the brain are activated. Governments and health agencies worldwide are seeking for the effects of online gaming to be addressed, and for preventive approaches to be developed. Central to this effort is a need to delineate the nature of the problem, which is the purpose of the definitions in the draft of ICD-11.

No abstract

The proposed introduction of gaming disorder (GD) in the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) has led to a lively debate over the past year. Besides the broad support for the decision in the academic press, a recent publication by van Rooij et al. (2018) repeated the criticism raised against the inclusion of GD in ICD-11 by Aarseth et al. (2017). We argue that this group of researchers fails to recognize the clinical and public health considerations, which support the WHO perspective. It is important to recognize a range of biases that may influence this debate; in particular, the gaming industry may wish to diminish its responsibility by claiming that GD is not a public health problem, a position which maybe supported by arguments from scholars based in media psychology, computer games research, communication science, and related disciplines. However, just as with any other disease or disorder in the ICD-11, the decision whether or not to include GD is based on clinical evidence and public health needs. Therefore, we reiterate our conclusion that including GD reflects the essence of the ICD and will facilitate treatment and prevention for those who need it.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) included internet game disorder (IGD) in section III of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fifth Edition (DSM-5) on the condition that it guaranteed more clinical research and experience. The World Health Organization (WHO) also included Game Disorder (GD) in the 11th final revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) and recently recognized it as a diagnosis code. This study aims to compare clinical characteristics and gaming behavior patterns between the IGD diagnosis criteria proposed by the DSM-5 and the GD diagnosis criteria proposed by the ICD-11 based on clinical cohort data (c-CURE: clinic-Cohort for Understanding of internet addiction Rescue factors in Early life) obtained in the Republic of Korea. Psychologists and psychiatrists conducted semi-structured interviews with children/adolescents and their caregivers to identify IGD (Diagnostic Interview for Internet, Game, SNS, etc. Addiction, DIA), and comorbid psychiatric disorders (Kiddie-Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia-Present and Lifetime Version-Korean version, K-SADS-PL). The cohort was divided into three IGD diagnosis groups (Normal, DSM5, DSM5 + ICD11) based on DSM-5 and ICD-11 diagnosis criteria. Internet usage pattern and addiction characteristics and psychiatric comorbidities were compared among the three IGD diagnosis groups. The Normal group consisted of 115 subjects, the DSM5 group contained 61 subjects, and the DSM5 + ICD11 group amounted to 12 subjects. The DSM5 + ICD11 group had a lower age of starting use of Internet/games/smartphones than other groups and the average time of Internet/game/smartphone use during weekdays/weekends was the highest. Also, in the eight items scored, excluding ‘deceiving’ and ‘craving’, the rate of threshold was highest in the DSM5 + ICD11 group, followed by the DSM5 group and the Normal group. On the other hand, ‘deceiving’ and ‘craving’ were the highest in DSM5, followed by DSM5 + ICD11 and Normal. The DSM5 + ICD11 group had significantly higher rates of depressive disorder, oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) and conduct disorder (CD) compared to other groups. This study provides implications for the clinical characteristics of IGD diagnosis in the field by comparing the DSM-5 IGD diagnosis criteria with the ICD-11 GD diagnosis criteria. Furthermore, this study provides empirical evidence that ICD-11 GD emphasizes serious symptoms such as functional impairment caused by excessive Internet/game/smartphone use over a long time, and it supports the validity of the ICD-11 GD diagnosis.

Overall, it appears that although several steps have been taken to address problematic video game playing, most of these steps were not as effective as expected, or had not been evaluated empirically for efficacy. The reason for this may lie in the fact that the policies outlined only addressed or influenced specific aspects of the problem instead of using a more integrative approach.

Background and aims Following the recognition of 'internet gaming disorder' (IGD) as a condition requiring further study by the DSM-5, 'gaming disorder' (GD) was officially included as a diagnostic entity by the World Health Organization (WHO) in the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). However, the proposed diagnostic criteria for gaming disorder remain the subject of debate, and there has been no systematic attempt to integrate the views of different groups of experts. To achieve a more systematic agreement on this new disorder, this study employed the Delphi expert consensus method to obtain expert agreement on the diagnostic validity, clinical utility and prognostic value of the DSM-5 criteria and ICD-11 clinical guidelines for GD. Methods A total of 29 international experts with clinical and/or research experience in GD completed three iterative rounds of a Delphi survey. Experts rated proposed criteria in progressive rounds until a pre-determined level of agreement was achieved. Results For DSM-5 IGD criteria, there was an agreement

This commentary responds to Aarseth et al.’s (in press) criticisms that the ICD-11 Gaming Disorder proposal would result in “moral panics around the harm of video gaming” and “the treatment of abundant false-positive cases.” The ICD-11 Gaming Disorder avoids potential “overpathologizing” with its explicit reference to functional impairment caused by gaming and therefore improves upon a number of flawed previous approaches to identifying cases with suspected gaming-related harms. We contend that moral panics are more likely to occur and be exacerbated by misinformation and lack of understanding, rather than proceed from having a clear diagnostic system.