Video Games as a Potential Modality for Behavioral Health Services for Young Adult Veterans: Exploratory Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Improving the reach of behavioral health services to young adult veterans is a policy priority. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to explore differences in video game playing by behavioral health need for young adult veterans to identify potential conditions for which video games could be used as a modality for behavioral health services. METHODS: We replicated analyses from two cross-sectional, community-based surveys of young adult veterans in the United States and examined the differences in time spent playing video games by whether participants screened positive for behavioral health issues and received the required behavioral health services. RESULTS: Pooling data across studies, participants with a positive mental health screen for depression or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) spent 4.74 more hours per week (95% CI 2.54-6.94) playing video games. Among participants with a positive screen for a substance use disorder, those who had received substance use services since discharge spent 0.75 more days per week (95% CI 0.28-1.21) playing video games than participants who had not received any substance use services since discharge. CONCLUSIONS: We identified the strongest evidence that participants with a positive PTSD or depression screen and participants with a positive screen for a substance use disorder who also received substance use services since their discharge from active duty spent more time playing video games. Future development and evaluation of video games as modalities for enhancing and increasing access to behavioral health services should be explored for this population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".