Gaming My Way to Recovery: A Systematic Scoping Review of Digital Game Interventions for Young People's Mental Health Treatment and Promotion.

Nearly all young people use the internet daily. Many youth with mental health concerns, especially since the Covid-19 pandemic, are using this route to seek help, whether through digital mental health treatment, illness prevention tools, or supports for mental wellbeing. Videogames also have wide appeal among young people, including those who receive mental health services. This review identifies the literature on videogame interventions for young people, ages 12-29, and maps the data on game use by those with mental health and substance use problems, focusing on evidence for the capacity of games to support treatment in youth mental health services; how stakeholders are involved in developing or evaluating games; and any potential harms and ethical remedies identified. A systematic scoping review methodology was used to identify and assess relevant studies. A search of multiple databases identified a total of 8,733 articles. They were screened, and 49 studies testing 32 digital games retained. An adapted stepped care model, including four levels, or steps, based on illness manifestation and severity, was used as a conceptual framework for organizing target populations, mental health conditions and corresponding digital games, and study results. The 49 selected studies included: 10 studies (20.4%) on mental health promotion/prevention or education for undiagnosed youth (Step 0: 7 games); 6 studies (12.2%) on at-risk groups or suspected mental problems (Step 1: 5 games); 24 studies (49.0%) on mild to moderate mental conditions (Steps 2-3: 16 games); and 9 studies (18.4%) focused on severe and complex mental conditions (Step 4: 7 games). Two interventions were played by youth at more than one level of illness severity: the SPARX game (Steps 1, 2-3, 4) and Dojo (Steps 2-3 and 4), bringing the total game count to 35 with these repetitions. Findings support the potential integration of digital games in youth services based on study outcomes, user satisfaction, relatively high program retention rates and the potential usefulness of most games for mental health treatment or promotion/prevention. Most studies included stakeholder feedback, and involvement ratings were very high for seven games. Potential harms were not addressed in this body of research. This review provides an important initial repository and evaluation of videogames for use in clinical settings concerned with youth mental health.

Digital Game Interventions for Youth Mental Health Services (Gaming My Way to Recovery): Protocol for a Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Digital or video games are played by millions of adolescents and young adults around the world and are one of the technologies used by youths to access mental health services. Youths with mental health problems strongly endorse the use of technologies, including mobile and online platforms, to receive information, support their treatment journeys (eg, decision-making tools), and facilitate recovery. A growing body of literature explores the advantages of playing digital games for improving attention span and memory, managing emotions, promoting behavior change, and supporting treatment for mental illness (eg, anxiety, depression, or posttraumatic stress disorder). The research field has also focused on the negative impact of video games, describing potential harms related to aggression, addiction, and depression. To promote clarity on this matter, there is a great need for knowledge synthesis offering recommendations on how video games can be safely and effectively adopted and integrated into youth mental health services. OBJECTIVE: The Gaming My Way to Recovery scoping review project assesses existing evidence on the use of digital game interventions within the context of mental health services for youths (aged 11-29 years) using the stepped care model as the conceptual framework. The research question is as follows: For which youth mental health conditions have digital games been used and what broad objectives (eg, prevention, treatment) have they addressed? METHODS: Using the methodology proposed by Arksey and O'Malley, this scoping review will map the available evidence on the use of digital games for youths between 11 and 29 years old with mental health or substance use problems, or both. RESULTS: The review will bring together evidence-based knowledge to assist mental health providers and policymakers in evaluating the potential benefits and risks of these interventions. Following funding of the project in September 2018, we completed the search in November 2018, and carried out data screening and stakeholder engagement activities during preparation of the protocol. We will conduct a knowledge synthesis based on specific disorders, treatment level and modality, type of service, population, settings, ethical practices, and user engagement and offer recommendations concerning the integration of video game technologies and programs, future research and practice, and knowledge dissemination. CONCLUSIONS: Digital game interventions employ unique, experiential, and interactive features that potentially improve skills and facilitate learning among players. Digital games may also provide a new treatment platform for youths with mental health conditions. Assessing current knowledge on video game technology and interventions may potentially improve the range of interventions offered by youth mental health services while supporting prevention, intervention, and treatment. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/13834.

A weak scientific basis for gaming disorder: Let us err on the side of caution.

We greatly appreciate the care and thought that is evident in the 10 commentaries that discuss our debate paper, the majority of which argued in favor of a formalized ICD-11 gaming disorder. We agree that there are some people whose play of video games is related to life problems. We believe that understanding this population and the nature and severity of the problems they experience should be a focus area for future research. However, moving from research construct to formal disorder requires a much stronger evidence base than we currently have. The burden of evidence and the clinical utility should be extremely high, because there is a genuine risk of abuse of diagnoses. We provide suggestions about the level of evidence that might be required: transparent and preregistered studies, a better demarcation of the subject area that includes a rationale for focusing on gaming particularly versus a more general behavioral addictions concept, the exploration of non-addiction approaches, and the unbiased exploration of clinical approaches that treat potentially underlying issues, such as depressive mood or social anxiety first. We acknowledge there could be benefits to formalizing gaming disorder, many of which were highlighted by colleagues in their commentaries, but we think they do not yet outweigh the wider societal and public health risks involved. Given the gravity of diagnostic classification and its wider societal impact, we urge our colleagues at the WHO to err on the side of caution for now and postpone the formalization.

Scholars' open debate paper on the World Health Organization ICD-11 Gaming Disorder proposal.

Concerns about problematic gaming behaviors deserve our full attention. However, we claim that it is far from clear that these problems can or should be attributed to a new disorder. The empirical basis for a Gaming Disorder proposal, such as in the new ICD-11, suffers from fundamental issues. Our main concerns are the low quality of the research base, the fact that the current operationalization leans too heavily on substance use and gambling criteria, and the lack of consensus on symptomatology and assessment of problematic gaming. The act of formalizing this disorder, even as a proposal, has negative medical, scientific, public-health, societal, and human rights fallout that should be considered. Of particular concern are moral panics around the harm of video gaming. They might result in premature application of diagnosis in the medical community and the treatment of abundant false-positive cases, especially for children and adolescents. Second, research will be locked into a confirmatory approach, rather than an exploration of the boundaries of normal versus pathological. Third, the healthy majority of gamers will be affected negatively. We expect that the premature inclusion of Gaming Disorder as a diagnosis in ICD-11 will cause significant stigma to the millions of children who play video games as a part of a normal, healthy life. At this point, suggesting formal diagnoses and categories is premature: the ICD-11 proposal for Gaming Disorder should be removed to avoid a waste of public health resources as well as to avoid causing harm to healthy video gamers around the world.