An important proportion of infants and adolescents in Japan are using Internet-equipped devices, including smartphones, tablets, and game consoles. However, the relationship between the risk of IA and the age at initial habitual Internet use remains unknown. We aimed to investigate this relationship among adolescents.
We surveyed 1,775 subjects in seven public junior high schools in Kanagawa prefecture, Japan, in November 2017. Students were asked to complete the Young's Diagnostic Questionnaire (YDQ), which captured information regarding gender, school grade, night sleep, age at which they first started using the Internet at least once weekly, Internet usage situation, and Internet use time for purposes other than study. Data from subjects who reported experience of weekly Internet use were analyzed.
Junior high school students who were younger at initial weekly Internet use tended to have problematic Internet use (PIU) and to spend more time on Internet activities. In particular, initial weekly Internet use before the age of five in boys was associated with a significantly increased risk of PIU (YDQ ≥ 5), with an odds ratio of 14.955, compared with initial weekly Internet use after the age of 12. Smartphone ownership significantly increased the risk of PIU compared with no ownership among the total population and among girls.
Discussion and Conclusions
Junior high school male students displayed a robust relationship between initial weekly Internet use and PIU, whereas junior high school female students displayed a particularly strong relationship between smartphone ownership and PIU. Therefore, longitudinal IA preventive education from an early age is necessary.
Data from a specialist treatment facility for Internet addiction (IA) in Japan showed that (a) the vast majority of treatment seekers are addicted to online games, (b) their symptoms are often quite severe, and (c) there is a significant demand for IA treatment. In addition, systemic obstacles to the delivery of medical services in Japan exist due to the exclusion of IA criteria from ICD-10. Consequently, the inclusion of GD criteria in ICD-11 will almost certainly increase the capacity and quality of treatment through advances in research and possible changes in national medical systems to meet treatment demand.
Authors:Joël Billieux, Daniel L. King, Susumu Higuchi, Sophia Achab, Henrietta Bowden-Jones, Wei Hao, Jiang Long, Hae Kook Lee, Marc N. Potenza, John B. Saunders and Vladimir Poznyak
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.
Authors:John B. Saunders, Wei Hao, Jiang Long, Daniel L. King, Karl Mann, Mira Fauth-Bühler, Hans-Jürgen Rumpf, Henrietta Bowden-Jones, Afarin Rahimi-Movaghar, Thomas Chung, Elda Chan, Norharlina Bahar, Sophia Achab, Hae Kook Lee, Marc Potenza, Nancy Petry, Daniel Spritzer, Atul Ambekar, Jeffrey Derevensky, Mark D. Griffiths, Halley M. Pontes, Daria Kuss, Susumu Higuchi, Satoko Mihara, Sawitri Assangangkornchai, Manoj Sharma, Ahmad El Kashef, Patrick Ip, Michael Farrell, Emanuele Scafato, Natacha Carragher and Vladimir Poznyak
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.
Authors:Hans-Jürgen Rumpf, Sophia Achab, Joël Billieux, Henrietta Bowden-Jones, Natacha Carragher, Zsolt Demetrovics, Susumu Higuchi, Daniel L. King, Karl Mann, Marc Potenza, John B. Saunders, Max Abbott, Atul Ambekar, Osman Tolga Aricak, Sawitri Assanangkornchai, Norharlina Bahar, Guilherme Borges, Matthias Brand, Elda Mei-Lo Chan, Thomas Chung, Jeff Derevensky, Ahmad El Kashef, Michael Farrell, Naomi A. Fineberg, Claudia Gandin, Douglas A. Gentile, Mark D. Griffiths, Anna E. Goudriaan, Marie Grall-Bronnec, Wei Hao, David C. Hodgins, Patrick Ip, Orsolya Király, Hae Kook Lee, Daria Kuss, Jeroen S. Lemmens, Jiang Long, Olatz Lopez-Fernandez, Satoko Mihara, Nancy M. Petry, Halley M. Pontes, Afarin Rahimi-Movaghar, Florian Rehbein, Jürgen Rehm, Emanuele Scafato, Manoi Sharma, Daniel Spritzer, Dan J. Stein, Philip Tam, Aviv Weinstein, Hans-Ulrich Wittchen, Klaus Wölfling, Daniele Zullino and Vladimir Poznyak
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.