Clinical predictors of gaming abstinence in help-seeking adult problematic gamers

Abstract

Research into the effectiveness of interventions for problematic gaming has been limited by a lack of data concerning the clinical characteristics of voluntary treatment-seekers; the nature and history of their gaming problems; and, their reasons for seeking help. The study aimed to identify variables predictive of short-term commitment to gaming abstinence following initial voluntary contact with an online help service. A total of 186 adult gamers with gaming-related problems were recruited online. Participants completed the DSM-5 Internet gaming disorder (IGD) checklist, Depression Anxiety Stress Scales-21, Internet Gaming Cognition Scale, Gaming Craving Scale, and Gaming Quality of Life Scale. A one-week follow up survey assessed adherence with intended gaming abstinence. Abstainers were less likely to have withdrawal symptoms and less likely to play action shooting games. Participants with mood symptoms (40% of the total) reported significantly more IGD symptoms, stronger maladaptive gaming cognitions (e.g., overvaluing game rewards), more previous occurrences of gaming problems, and poorer quality of life. However, mood symptoms did not predict abstinence from or continuation of gaming. Adults with gaming disorder seeking help to reduce their gaming may benefit initially from strategies that manage withdrawal and psychoeducation about riskier gaming activities.

Avatar identification and problematic gaming: The role of self-concept clarity

“…The checklist has been used in clinical and neurobiological studies of GD, and shown solid psychometric qualities ( King et al, 2020b , King et al, 2020c ). Internal consistency of the scale in this study was 0.68, which was relatively low but consistent with other studies ( Evans et al, 2018 , Jeromin et al, 2016 , King et al, 2018 ), and which may be attributed to the variable sensitivity of the 9 DSM-5 criteria ( Ko et al, 2014 ).…”

Current diagnostic procedures and interventions for Gaming Disorders: A Systematic Review

“…Some studies (Zhang et al, 2016a,b, 2018; Deng et al, 2017; King et al, 2018) were considered at risk for selection bias, because the allocation in the experimental or control group was not random, or because the experimental group was made up only of patients who agreed to participate from a clinical community. In all the studies, it was not possible to estimate performance bias because the blinding procedure of participants and personnel could not be applied because only one of the groups received an intervention (e.g., clinical group vs. healthy group).…”

“…A risk of detection bias was also reported in one study (Eickhoff et al, 2015) because the outcomes were exclusively based on the reports of the same therapist that conducted the intervention. A number of studies (Eickhoff et al, 2015; van Rooij et al, 2017; Zhang et al, 2016a,b, 2018; King et al, 2018) could have a risk for attrition bias because intervention data were incomplete, or quite large numbers of missing or incomplete data were detected. Some studies (Eickhoff et al, 2015; Park et al, 2016b, 2017; Vasiliu and Vasile, 2017) showed reporting bias because not all the information about outcome and the evaluation of the treatment were reported, or because effect sizes were not reported.…”

Access to health care for gaming disorder: A patient-centred approach to address the continuum of need

“…In addition, individual factors related to GD may delay or inhibit treatment seeking, such as low insight, procrastination, impulsivity, and shyness or introversion (43)(44)(45)(46). Another possibility is that some individuals with gaming-related problems may initially seek out information, social support and assistance from less formal, convenient sources, such as online support groups (47).…”