MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408309475 · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2025.108644

Problem gaming and adolescents’ health and well-being: Evidence from a large nationally representative sample in Italy

2025· article· en· W4408309475 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueComputers in Human Behavior · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMaine Center for Disease Control and PreventionIstituto Superiore di SanitàMinistero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della RicercaMinistero dell'Istruzione e del MeritoMinistero della Salute
KeywordsSample (material)PsychologyReal world evidenceDevelopmental psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Playing video games is a common leisure activity for adolescents, but a minority can develop maladaptive gaming patterns and experience impairments in various health domains. Most research has been conducted within the dichotomy of “non-problematic gaming” and “problematic gaming” with convenience and unrepresentative samples, necessitating further investigation to provide more robust and generalizable evidence. In this study, we examined the impact of gaming on different groups of gamers with distinct degrees of gaming involvement in relation to various psychological and physical health outcomes and behaviours. Data included a nationally representative sample of 89321 adolescents (11-17 years) from the 2022 Italian Health Behaviour in School-aged Children study. We compared groups of gamers (low risk, high risk, and problematic) with non-gamers concerning their (mental) health, nutrition, physical activity, sleep, and social well-being. Logistic regressions were used to estimate the odds ratios (adjusted for gender, age, material deprivation, and family structure). Compared with non-gamers (33.7% of the sample), low-risk gamers (51.6%) reported better health-related outcomes (lower risk of depression, lower stress, fewer psychological and somatic symptoms). High-risk (11.6%) and problematic gamers (3.1%) showed significantly higher impairments in all health-related outcomes than non-gamers did, the associations being especially pronounced in the problematic gaming group. Video games are not inherently harmful, and adolescents who reported a low risk of gaming problems showed slightly better health-related outcomes than non-gamers did. However, a minority of vulnerable users engaged in problematic use associated with negative consequences, functional impairment (e.g., sleep interference), and various unhealthy behaviours. • Low-risk gamers show slightly better health-related outcomes than non-gamers do • High-risk and problematic gamers report worse health/well-being than non-gamers do • The associations are especially pronounced in the problematic gaming group • Problematic gamers are most likely to experience sleep problems • Results call for the implementation of tailored interventions and preventive actions

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.344 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it