Is “game disorder” really a disease? Controversies arising from WHO certification

Is “game disorder” really a disease?

The World Health Organization (WHO) has announced that it will add “game disorders” to the disease. In reality, however, game disability studies are inconsistent in object and method, and no decision points are given for diagnosis. For this reason, experts say that it is premature because of insufficient evidence.

addiction to the gaming

For those who are addicted to the popular game “Fort Knight”, this is a nasty news. The World Health Organization (WHO) has included “Game Disorders” as a mental health symptom in the “International Disease Classification 11th Edition (ICD-11)” .

Although it was added in the draft of “International Disease Classification 11th Edition (ICD-11)” announced in January this year, it was finally officially decided. This revision was made as social concerns about technology abuse continued to grow.

With the idea of digital wellness drawing attention, Apple and Google have just released a tool that allows users to manage their time watching the screen. This includes parental controls that can limit the amount of time children spend in the game.

Experts appreciate the new Google and Apple tools as "the first step in the right direction". However, many are concerned about the fact that game failures were included in the ICD.

Nancy Petrie, who studies psychology at the University of Connecticut, says, “I don't want people who are not actually ill but are classified as having mental illness.” In 2013, Petrie chaired a subcommittee of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and added “Internet Game Disorders” to the latest edition of the Society's Manual for Diagnosis and Statistics of Mental Disorders (DSM). It is a person who has studied.

At this meeting, Petrie's group concluded that “there is too little evidence to add game addiction to the list as a formal obstacle”. And added to the item titled “Symptoms that need further investigation”.

Does “firm evidence” exist?

Petrie currently leads the first research on game addiction funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), but believes that "the evidence is still inadequate." As a result, mental health professionals are in some troubled situation.

The most important question in fact is, some people games and non- health is not on whether or not to build a relationship. Concerns about the appeal of video games are correct, more research is needed on this issue, and a small number of people who are likely to develop problematic clinical habits that are subject to clinical practice Most experts agree on this.

More importantly, Is the research so far robust enough to justify a formal classification by WHO?

Unlike DSM, there is no provisional classification or addendum that indicates that ICD-11 needs further research on what might be a disability. Either ICD-11 or not. For this reason, people who criticize the statement say that “addition of disability to the list, characterization of disability, and treatment of evidence on treatment should be very careful”.

At least at the moment, the opposition claims that “there is no evidence of game disabilities”. Many previous studies on this issue are surprisingly low quality. Most are statistically inadequate, based on small sample sizes, and little is known about whether video games cause psychological problems or are simply related.

“Some of these game habits are hiding behind other psychological problems, and there are some ways to deal with them,” points out the game research at Waterloo University in Canada. "human-computer interaction at game 's Renato Knack, director of the s group (human and computer games group interaction)".

The point of misdiagnosis is “not yet”

There is also the problem that studies are inconsistent when mixed with these deficiencies in research. Not only what is measured, but also how it is measured. “There are far more than 50 types of self-reported measures used to investigate game disabilities,” said Petrie of Connecticut University. To put it another way, many researchers who deal with game disabilities do not even speak the same language.

As a result, the estimation of how far a game failure has spread is also significantly different. However, several studies based on DSM's tentative standards that Petry was involved in enacting indicated that "0.3 percent to 1 percent of the population may be affected by game disruptions."

This percentage would be millions of people. For reference, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) estimates the range of schizophrenia and related mental disorders in the United States from 0.25 percent to 0.64 percent. In other words, clinically speaking, people with game disabilities can represent a significant proportion of the population. This fact further emphasizes the need for clear diagnostic criteria.

Considering the problem of too many measures for assessing game impairments, many place too much emphasis on “time spent in the game”. Of course, the former is more likely to have problems than those who play every day and night as compared to those who place little fingers on the cross key. However, many people who are playing games for more than 10, 15, or 20 hours a week are happy, productive, and socially active.

People who disagree with the ICD-11 criticize that, despite the lack of clear diagnostic guidelines, "WHO is taking the risk of having a healthy relationship with the game." Experts are worried that the situation where they are diagnosed as having a game failure is inevitable.

“It's dangerous to be suddenly considered morbid, even if it's healthier from another point of view,” says Nuck from the University of Waterloo. “You may misdiagnose 10 out of 100 people before you determine that one has a serious game disorder. This is a serious problem.”

Petrie says, You can test only after the diagnostic criteria are complete.Despite that, everything is going backwards in the field of research on game dependence. Most of the measurement scales used are not appropriate in the first place. There are no decision points for diagnosis.

WHO believes that mental health professionals who have patients whose personal life has been severely affected by game habits for more than a year have the power to identify their own judgment points. . Perhaps they have prepared. However, it is not yet known whether it has the power to avoid misdiagnosis.