4.7 Article

International comparison of gaming disorder symptomatology: Analysis of Ithra's 30-nation digital wellbeing survey.

Journal

COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR
Volume 150, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2023.107993

Keywords

Gaming; IGD; Prevalence; Addiction; Global; Multinational

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The prevalence of gaming disorder varies greatly between countries, with higher rates in Asian and Middle Eastern nations and lower rates in South and Central American countries. Several factors, including age, gender, parenthood, and education, are correlated with gaming disorder.
Gaming disorder prevalence varies greatly between nations and world regions. However, much of the multinational comparative research relies upon analysis of pooled studies in the form of metanalytic reviews. Few studies have compared international gaming disorder prevalence within the same analysis, using common timeframes, samples and measures. The present study addresses this gap, examining gaming disorder symptomatology and its socio-demographic correlates across 30 countries. Participants (N = 15,000) were representative adult samples (N = 500) drawn from 30 nations. All participants provided socio-demographic data and completed a measure of gaming disorder symptoms. Gaming disorder prevalence varied widely between nations. Linear mixed models identified several correlates, including age, gender, parenthood and education. Even after controlling for demographic variables, marked differences in national-level gaming disorder remained, with Asian and Middle Eastern nations (India, Turkey, China, UAE, Singapore) at the high end, and South and Central American nations (Columbia, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina) at the low end. Possible explanation for this nation-level variability are discussed. These findings can help inform policy initiatives to reduce and prevent gaming disorder.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available