Jennifer J Park, Adam Stryjewski, Bryan Chen, Marc N Potenza
{"title":"Treatment of Gaming Disorder in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Jennifer J Park, Adam Stryjewski, Bryan Chen, Marc N Potenza","doi":"10.5765/jkacap.250014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Given the disproportionate burden of gaming disorder (GD) on younger populations, there is a need to comprehensively evaluate the current evidence base around treatment for children and adolescents. This systematic review aimed to summarize the available literature on GD treatment in younger populations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search of five databases was conducted. Studies were eligible if they 1) evaluated psychological or pharmacological interventions targeting GD in children, adolescents, or parents seeking help for their children; 2) had at least one outcome of GD severity or gaming duration/frequency; and 3) employed a randomized controlled trial or quasi-experimental design. Study quality was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty studies were included in the review, comprising 2157 participants. Interventions based on or delivered in combination with cognitive-behavioral therapy were the most frequently studied (n=19), while a diverse range of other treatments (e.g., pharmacotherapy, online psychoeducation, and equine-assisted therapy) were explored in fewer studies. Despite promising findings across studies, the overall quality of evidence was inconsistent, with many studies lacking randomization, control groups, and long-term follow-up. Additionally, cross-study comparisons may have been limited by the variability in GD measures across studies, with 19 different assessment tools identified.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although research on the treatment of GD in children and adolescents has grown, it remains in its early stages. To advance evidence-based treatment, future research should prioritize methodologically rigorous designs, standardized outcome measures, and long-term follow-up assessments.</p>","PeriodicalId":42806,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Korean Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry","volume":"36 3","pages":"106-121"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12223676/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Korean Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5765/jkacap.250014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: Given the disproportionate burden of gaming disorder (GD) on younger populations, there is a need to comprehensively evaluate the current evidence base around treatment for children and adolescents. This systematic review aimed to summarize the available literature on GD treatment in younger populations.
Methods: A systematic search of five databases was conducted. Studies were eligible if they 1) evaluated psychological or pharmacological interventions targeting GD in children, adolescents, or parents seeking help for their children; 2) had at least one outcome of GD severity or gaming duration/frequency; and 3) employed a randomized controlled trial or quasi-experimental design. Study quality was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool.
Results: Thirty studies were included in the review, comprising 2157 participants. Interventions based on or delivered in combination with cognitive-behavioral therapy were the most frequently studied (n=19), while a diverse range of other treatments (e.g., pharmacotherapy, online psychoeducation, and equine-assisted therapy) were explored in fewer studies. Despite promising findings across studies, the overall quality of evidence was inconsistent, with many studies lacking randomization, control groups, and long-term follow-up. Additionally, cross-study comparisons may have been limited by the variability in GD measures across studies, with 19 different assessment tools identified.
Conclusion: Although research on the treatment of GD in children and adolescents has grown, it remains in its early stages. To advance evidence-based treatment, future research should prioritize methodologically rigorous designs, standardized outcome measures, and long-term follow-up assessments.