Cited by 23Gambling Behavior and TreatmentsSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesImpact of Technology on Adolescents

Person-centred interventions for problem gaming: a stepped care approach

Open access
Park, Jennifer J., Wilkinson-Meyers, Laura, King, Daniel L., Rodda, Simone N.·2021·BMC Public Health

Abstract

Background: Problem gaming is reported by approximately 1–3% of the population and is associated with decreased health and wellbeing. Research on optimal health responses to problem gaming remains limited. This study aimed to identify and describe the key components of a person-centred approach to interventions for problem gaming for individuals who voluntary seek assistance. Methods: Online interviews were conducted with 20 adults (90% male; M age = 23y) currently seeking help for problem gaming. The interview protocol was guided by a health care access framework which investigated participants’ experiences and needs related to accessing professional support. Transcripts were analysed in NVivo using qualitative content analysis to systematically classify participant data into the themes informed by this framework. Results: Participants had mixed views on how the negative consequences of problem gaming could be best addressed. Some indicated problems could be addressed through self-help resources whereas others suggested in-person treatment with a health professional who had expertise in gaming. Participants described the essential components of an effective health service for problem gaming as including: valid and reliable screening tools; practitioners with specialist knowledge of gaming; and access to a multimodal system of intervention, including self-help, internet and in-person options that allow gamers to easily transition between types and intensity of support. Conclusion: A comprehensive health care approach for interventions for problem gaming is in its infancy, with numerous service access and delivery issues still to be resolved. This study highlights the importance of involving individuals with gaming-related problems in developing solutions that are fit for purpose and address the spectrum of individual preferences and needs. These findings recommend a stepped healthcare system that adheres to evidence-based practice tailored to each individual and the implementation of standard assessment and routine outcome monitoring.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12889-021-10749-1

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Including gaming disorder in the ICD-11 has been an important step towards providing more effective, safe and person-centered care in a timely, integrated and efficient way.

    “Overall, including gaming disorder in the ICD-11 has been an important step towards providing more effective, safe and personcentered care in a timely, integrated and efficient way 161 .”

    From Emerging experience with selected new categories in the <scp>ICD</scp>‐11: complex <scp>PTSD</scp>, prolonged grief disorder, gaming disorder, and compulsive sexual behaviour disorder (2022) · cites this paper as [161]

    The Background (page not specified) calls ICD-11 recognition an important step toward advancing knowledge and standardising approaches to gaming disorder. The Results discuss person-centred, accessible services, but do not say that ICD-11 inclusion has led to more effective, safe, timely, integrated or efficient care. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 65 · Cited by 23

Authors
Park, J. J., Wilkinson-Meyers, L., King, D. L., & Rodda, S. N.
Affiliations
  • University of Auckland (NZ)
  • Flinders University (AU)
Corresponding author
Rodda, Simone N.
Venue
BMC Public Health
Published
2021-05-06
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
872-872
ISSN
1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3158103728
Cited by
23
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • ResearchSpace (University of Auckland) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Health Research Council (17/548)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
Keywords
problem gaming, person-centered intervention, stepped care, health care access, self-help materials, online intervention, screening tool, routine outcome monitoring, young adults, help-seeking experiences
MeSH terms
Adult, Delivery of Health Care, Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Video Games, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review