Including gaming disorder in the ICD-11: The need to do so from a clinical and public health perspective : Commentary on: A weak scientific basis for gaming disorder: Let us err on the side of caution (van Rooij et al., 2018)
Details
State: Public
Version: Final published version
License: CC BY-NC 4.0
Serval ID
serval:BIB_F6B8C46EC100
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Including gaming disorder in the ICD-11: The need to do so from a clinical and public health perspective : Commentary on: A weak scientific basis for gaming disorder: Let us err on the side of caution (van Rooij et al., 2018)
Journal
Journal of Behavioral Addictions
ISSN
2062-5871
2063-5303
2063-5303
Publication state
Published
Issued date
2018
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
7
Number
3
Pages
556-561
Language
english
Abstract
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.
(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.
Keywords
gaming disorder, ICD-11, clinical perspective, public health
Pubmed
Web of science
Publisher's website
Open Access
Yes
Create date
10/01/2020 10:30
Last modification date
16/01/2020 12:51
Usage data
