Videogame Play and Wellbeing Among a First Episode Psychosis Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With ongoing interest in the relationship between videogame and mental health alongside recent focus on gaming's role in coping with stressful life events, we sought to explore the relationship between videogame play and wellbeing among people experiencing their first episode of psychosis. Specifically, we aimed to explore the associations between videogame play and wellbeing among consumers of a first episode psychosis (FEP) service and further to compare their motivations for play, need satisfaction, passion for play and wellbeing to a control group. A sample of 88 people experiencing FEP (57 who played videogames and 31 who did not) and a control sample of 46 (all of whom played videogames) completed a survey containing a range of questionnaires related to the variables of interest. Key findings include that among those experiencing FEP, people who played videogames reported better wellbeing outcomes than those who did not. Among participants who played videogames, the FEP sample reported lower levels of need satisfaction through gaming, lower levels of harmonious passion, higher levels of external types of motivation and lower levels of internal types of motivation for play than the control group. Finally, the relationships between passion orientation (both harmonious and obsessive) and psychological distress were stronger in the control group than the FEP sample, suggesting that passion for gaming may be less influential on wellbeing for those experiencing FEP.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".