高风险和高分:调查世界卫生组织在全国代表性样本中对赌博和游戏障碍的标准。

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Halley M Pontes
{"title":"高风险和高分:调查世界卫生组织在全国代表性样本中对赌博和游戏障碍的标准。","authors":"Halley M Pontes","doi":"10.1016/j.jad.2025.120360","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Gambling disorder and gaming disorder are increasingly recognized as significant contributors to affective disorders, highlighting the need to better understand their diagnostic frameworks. The aim of this study was to compare \"core\" and \"peripheral\" diagnostic criteria for gaming disorder and, for the first time, evaluate these distinctions within gambling disorder. A nationally representative sample of 1074 British adults completed online assessments of gambling and gaming disorders per the World Health Organization's (WHO) eleventh revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). Condition Inferential Tree analyses identified which criteria best predicted high-risk behavior. Prevalence was low for gambling disorder (0.49 %) and gaming disorder (0.30 %), though high-risk cases were more frequent (2.47 % and 2.27 %, respectively). In gambling disorder, the experience of significant distress/impairment (criterion 4), increased priority (criterion 2), and continuation/escalation (criterion 3) emerged as core criteria while impaired control (criterion 1) was peripheral. For gaming disorder, the experience of significant distress/impairment (criterion 4), continuation/escalation (criterion 3), and impaired control (criterion 1) were core and increased priority (criterion 2) peripheral. It is feasible to distinguish core from peripheral criteria in both disorders, but doing so requires a careful, severity-sensitive approach. The findings imply that distinguishing core from peripheral diagnostic criteria in gambling and gaming disorders provides a useful severity-sensitive framework that clarifies their links with affective disorders. This precision helps clinicians target the symptoms most likely to worsen mood dysregulation and guides research into shared mechanisms, improving prevention and treatment for comorbid affective and behavioral disorders.</p>","PeriodicalId":14963,"journal":{"name":"Journal of affective disorders","volume":" ","pages":"120360"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"High stakes and high scores: Investigating the World Health Organization criteria for gambling and gaming disorders in a nationally representative sample.\",\"authors\":\"Halley M Pontes\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jad.2025.120360\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Gambling disorder and gaming disorder are increasingly recognized as significant contributors to affective disorders, highlighting the need to better understand their diagnostic frameworks. The aim of this study was to compare \\\"core\\\" and \\\"peripheral\\\" diagnostic criteria for gaming disorder and, for the first time, evaluate these distinctions within gambling disorder. A nationally representative sample of 1074 British adults completed online assessments of gambling and gaming disorders per the World Health Organization's (WHO) eleventh revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). Condition Inferential Tree analyses identified which criteria best predicted high-risk behavior. Prevalence was low for gambling disorder (0.49 %) and gaming disorder (0.30 %), though high-risk cases were more frequent (2.47 % and 2.27 %, respectively). In gambling disorder, the experience of significant distress/impairment (criterion 4), increased priority (criterion 2), and continuation/escalation (criterion 3) emerged as core criteria while impaired control (criterion 1) was peripheral. For gaming disorder, the experience of significant distress/impairment (criterion 4), continuation/escalation (criterion 3), and impaired control (criterion 1) were core and increased priority (criterion 2) peripheral. It is feasible to distinguish core from peripheral criteria in both disorders, but doing so requires a careful, severity-sensitive approach. The findings imply that distinguishing core from peripheral diagnostic criteria in gambling and gaming disorders provides a useful severity-sensitive framework that clarifies their links with affective disorders. This precision helps clinicians target the symptoms most likely to worsen mood dysregulation and guides research into shared mechanisms, improving prevention and treatment for comorbid affective and behavioral disorders.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14963,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of affective disorders\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"120360\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of affective disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2025.120360\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of affective disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2025.120360","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

赌博障碍和游戏障碍越来越被认为是情感障碍的重要贡献者,突出了更好地了解其诊断框架的必要性。本研究的目的是比较游戏障碍的“核心”和“外围”诊断标准,并首次评估赌博障碍中的这些区别。根据世界卫生组织(WHO)第十一版国际疾病分类(ICD-11), 1074名英国成年人的全国代表性样本完成了赌博和游戏障碍的在线评估。条件推断树分析确定了最能预测高危行为的标准。赌博障碍(0.49 %)和游戏障碍(0.30 %)的患病率较低,但高危病例更为频繁(分别为2.47 %和2.27 %)。在赌博障碍中,显著痛苦/损害(标准4)、优先级增加(标准2)和持续/升级(标准3)的经历成为核心标准,而控制受损(标准1)是外围标准。对于游戏障碍,显著痛苦/损害(标准4)、持续/升级(标准3)和控制受损(标准1)的体验是核心,优先级增加(标准2)是外围。在这两种疾病中区分核心和外周标准是可行的,但这样做需要一种谨慎的、对严重程度敏感的方法。研究结果表明,区分赌博和游戏障碍的核心诊断标准和外围诊断标准提供了一个有用的严重敏感框架,澄清了它们与情感障碍的联系。这种精确性有助于临床医生瞄准最可能恶化情绪失调的症状,并指导研究共享机制,改善对共病情感和行为障碍的预防和治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
High stakes and high scores: Investigating the World Health Organization criteria for gambling and gaming disorders in a nationally representative sample.

Gambling disorder and gaming disorder are increasingly recognized as significant contributors to affective disorders, highlighting the need to better understand their diagnostic frameworks. The aim of this study was to compare "core" and "peripheral" diagnostic criteria for gaming disorder and, for the first time, evaluate these distinctions within gambling disorder. A nationally representative sample of 1074 British adults completed online assessments of gambling and gaming disorders per the World Health Organization's (WHO) eleventh revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). Condition Inferential Tree analyses identified which criteria best predicted high-risk behavior. Prevalence was low for gambling disorder (0.49 %) and gaming disorder (0.30 %), though high-risk cases were more frequent (2.47 % and 2.27 %, respectively). In gambling disorder, the experience of significant distress/impairment (criterion 4), increased priority (criterion 2), and continuation/escalation (criterion 3) emerged as core criteria while impaired control (criterion 1) was peripheral. For gaming disorder, the experience of significant distress/impairment (criterion 4), continuation/escalation (criterion 3), and impaired control (criterion 1) were core and increased priority (criterion 2) peripheral. It is feasible to distinguish core from peripheral criteria in both disorders, but doing so requires a careful, severity-sensitive approach. The findings imply that distinguishing core from peripheral diagnostic criteria in gambling and gaming disorders provides a useful severity-sensitive framework that clarifies their links with affective disorders. This precision helps clinicians target the symptoms most likely to worsen mood dysregulation and guides research into shared mechanisms, improving prevention and treatment for comorbid affective and behavioral disorders.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of affective disorders
Journal of affective disorders 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
6.10%
发文量
1319
审稿时长
9.3 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Affective Disorders publishes papers concerned with affective disorders in the widest sense: depression, mania, mood spectrum, emotions and personality, anxiety and stress. It is interdisciplinary and aims to bring together different approaches for a diverse readership. Top quality papers will be accepted dealing with any aspect of affective disorders, including neuroimaging, cognitive neurosciences, genetics, molecular biology, experimental and clinical neurosciences, pharmacology, neuroimmunoendocrinology, intervention and treatment trials.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信