Last year the World Health Organisation (WHO) announced their plan to create a new gaming disorder classification. It was met with scepticism, as many saw gaming addiction as part of a wider problem, but also welcomed, as some people clearly do get addicted to video games.
However, a new paper “A Weak Scientific Basis for Gaming Disorder: Let us err on the side of caution” will shortly appear in the Journal of Behavioral Addictions, argues that there is not enough research on the topic and by recognising gaming as an official disorder it might spread “panic”.
The paper was written by thirty “internationally renowned and respected mental health experts, leading social scientists and academics from research centers and universities – including Oxford University, Johns Hopkins University, Stockholm University and The University of Sydney.”
- “Much confusion remains – even among authors supporting the diagnosis – regarding what, exactly, gaming disorder is.”
- “We maintain that the quality of the existing evidence base is low.”
- “Formalizing a disorder with the intention to improve research quality neglects the wider non-clinical societal context”
- “Robust scientific standards are not (yet) employed.”
- “Moral panic might be influencing formalization and might increase due to it.”
- An addiction “should be clearly and unambiguously established before formalizing new disorders in disease classification system.”
As you might expect, key industry bodies are backing this new paper. Dr Jo Twist OBE, CEO of Ukie, said “It is clear that there remains significant opposition from the scientific community to the WHO’s proposed position on a ‘gaming disorder’. We join them and others from the global games sector in calling for the WHO to consider the evidence and concerns presented in this new paper and to stop the unnecessary inclusion of this classification.”
Source: Press release
JR.
I do think gaming can become an addiction for some, like anything else. But the opinions of these so called experts are worthless. Bunch of nobs trying to stand of from the sea of other so called experts with Psychology degrees. Like we don’t have enough of those.
People always side with the experts who’s opinions fall in line with their own, whilst ignoring the ‘experts’ they disagree with. Total waste of time either way.
KippDynamite
I think the evidence base is weak and getting weaker. Also, as a clinician, I think it’s cumbersome to classify absolutely every permutation of how disorders may manifest – my personal opinion is that only extremely prevalent (relative to other metal health issues) or clearly distinct phenomena should have their own diagnosis/classification. For example, we don’t need separate terms for when a person eats hair, and another for when they eat dirt – Pica encapsulates any eating of a non-nutrutive substance.
The Lone Steven
And shall be ignored because it doesn’t back up the scapegoating agenda. I mean, really? Blaming video games again? Though, i do feel that addiction can be quite na issue for some folks and that needs to be looked at it. That and Lootboxes can be bad for those with addiction to gambling.
Also, how? Which? and huh? How will it be a disorder? I mean, would I be able to claim extra benefits? Would it enable me to get extra help with stuff? How does one get diagniosed as a gaming disorder er… “Sufferer”? Which games? Super Mario? Or GTA? Or STD simulator? And huh? Gaming as a disorder? Really?
Before someone has a go at me for mentioning benefits and it has occured a few times over the year, it’s a theortical question. I wouldn’t do that. Just stating it as a precaution in case someone acts like a Daily Mail Reader.