Problem gaming and suicidality: A systematic literature review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: No studies have so far synthesised the current evidence concerning a possible relationship between problem gaming and suicidality. We therefore conducted a systematic review of the literature. Our objective was to investigate the relationship between problem gaming and suicidality. The review was funded by the Norwegian Competence Center for Gambling and Gaming Research. Methods: The review was pre-registered in PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42021279774). Searches were conducted in Web of Science, PsycINFO, EMBASE, PubMed and Google Scholar, September 2021. Studies that reported data on the relationship between problem gaming and suicidality, published between 2000 and 2021, and written in any European language were included. Studies investigating internet addiction/problematic internet use and not problem gaming, specifically, and studies investigating mental health in general or mental health outcomes other than suicidality, were excluded. Data from the included studies were extracted independently by two coders who also evaluated for risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The results from each included study were presented in a table. Results: A total of 12 cross-sectional studies, with in total 88,732 participants, were included in the review. In total 10 studies investigated the association between problem gaming and suicidal ideation. One of these also investigated the association between problem gaming and suicide attempts. Two studies combined suicidal ideation and suicide attempts into one variable and investigated the association between that variable and problem gaming. In total 11 of the 12 included studies found positive, crude associations between problem gaming and suicidal ideation/attempts. Five studies adjusted for possible confounding variables. Three of these still found significant associations between problem gaming and suicidal ideation, one found a positive but not statistically significant association, and the fifth found an inverse, non-significant association. Discussion: The current findings indicate that there is an association between problem gaming and suicidal ideation, and likely between problem gaming and suicide attempts. The most important limitation of the included studies is the lack of longitudinal designs. Future studies should aim to investigate the causality and mechanisms in the relationships using more stringent designs.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,063 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,008 | 0,007 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,015 | 0,013 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».