Advertisement

Current Addiction Reports

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 331–337 | Cite as

Epidemiological Challenges in the Study of Behavioral Addictions: a Call for High Standard Methodologies

  • Hans-Jürgen RumpfEmail author
  • Dominique Brandt
  • Zsolt Demetrovics
  • Joël Billieux
  • Natacha Carragher
  • Matthias Brand
  • Henrietta Bowden-Jones
  • Afarin Rahimi-Movaghar
  • Sawitri Assanangkornchai
  • Renata Glavak-Tkalic
  • Guilherme Borges
  • Hae-Kook Lee
  • Florian Rehbein
  • Naomi A. Fineberg
  • Karl Mann
  • Marc N. Potenza
  • Dan J. Stein
  • Susumu Higuchi
  • Daniel King
  • John B. Saunders
  • Vladimir Poznyak
ICD-11 (D King, S Higuchi and V Poznyak, Section Editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on ICD-11

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) categorizes gambling disorder in the section on substance-related and addictive disorders, and the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) includes both gambling and gaming disorder as disorders due to addictive behaviors. However, there is less evidence for other putative behavioral addictions. This review focuses on requirements for epidemiological studies of disorders that may be considered as behavioral addictions and compares the current state of research with principles of sound epidemiological research.

Recent Findings

In studies of behavioral addictions, samples are often quite small, which may lead to increased random error. The lack of sound assessment tools—particularly the lack of agreed-upon diagnostic criteria and standardized diagnostic interviews—may also increase systematic error. Other concerns related to systematic bias include the use of convenience samples, lack of pro-active recruitment, inadequate assessment of confounding variables, and a dearth of representative and longitudinal studies.

Summary

This review recommends that future studies of putative behavioral addictions should more closely adhere to methodological standards of epidemiological research to reduce random and systematic error. Specific recommendations are detailed to advance epidemiological research in this area with the aim of improving the evidence base and generating more refined public health recommendations and policies.

Keywords

Behavioral addiction Epidemiology Surveys Assessment Recommendation Random error Systematic error 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Vladimir Poznyak is a staff member of the World Health Organization. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the decisions or policies of the World Health Organization.

Funding Information

This publication is based upon work from COST Action CA16207 “European Network for Problematic Usage of the Internet,” supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology: www.cost.eu). Marc Potenza has received support from the Connecticut State Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, the Connecticut Mental Health Center, the Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling, and the National Center for Responsible Gaming. The funding agencies did not provide input or comment on the content of the manuscript, and the content of the manuscript reflects the contributions and thoughts of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agencies. Zsolt Demetrovics was supported by the Hungarian National Research, Development and Innovation Office (Grant No.: KKP126835).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Hans-Jürgen Rumpf, Dominique Brandt, Zsolt Demetrovics, Joël Billieux, Natacha Carragher, Matthias Brand, Henrietta Bowden-Jones, Afarin Rahimi-Movaghar, Sawitri Assanangkornchai, Renata Glavak-Tkalic, Guilherme Borges, Hae-Kook Lee, Florian Rehbein, Naomi A. Fineberg, Karl Mann, Marc N. Potenza, Dan J. Stein, Susumu Higuchi, Daniel King, John B. Saunders, and Vladimir Poznyak declare that they have no conflict of interest with regard to this manuscript.

Naomi Fineberg reports personal fees from Otsuka, Lundbeck, Abbott, Sun Pharma, Taylor and Francis, Elsevier; personal fees and non-financial support from RANZCP, Wiley; grants from NIHR, Wellcome; grants and non-financial support from EU, ECNP, Shire; non-financial support from BAP, WHO, CINP, ISAD, RCPsych, International College Of OC Spectrum Disorders, IFMAD, MHRA; and others from Oxford University Press, all outside the submitted work.

Marc Potenza has received financial support or compensation for the following: Dr. Potenza has consulted for and advised RiverMend Health, Opiant/Lakelight Therapeutics, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals; has received unrestricted research support from Mohegan Sun Casino and grant support from the National Center for Responsible Gaming; and has consulted for legal and gambling entities on issues related to impulse control disorders.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    American Psychiatric Association, editor. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    World Health Organization. ICD-11 for mortality and morbidity statistics. Mental, behavioural or neurodevelopmental disorders. World Health Organisation,. 2018. https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en. Accessed Jan 30 2019.
  3. 3.
    Rumpf HJ, Achab S, Billieux J, Bowden-Jones H, Carragher N, Demetrovics Z. Including gaming disorder in the ICD-11: the need to do so from a clinical and public health perspective. J Behav Addict. 2018:1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.7.2018.59.
  4. 4.
    •• Saunders JB, Hao W, Long J, King DL, Mann K, Fauth-Buhler M, et al. Gaming disorder: its delineation as an important condition for diagnosis, management, and prevention. J Behav Addict. 2017;6(3):271–9.  https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.6.2017.039 This review outlines the evidence for incuding gaming disorder in ICD-11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baggio S, Starcevic V, Studer J, Simon O, Gainsbury SM, Gmel G, et al. Technology-mediated addictive behaviors constitute a Spectrum of related yet distinct conditions: a network perspective (vol 32, pg 564, 2018). Psychol Addict Behav. 2018;32(6):594.  https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000405. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Earp BD, Wudarczyk OA, Foddy B, Savulescu J. Addicted to love: what is love addiction and when should it be treated? Philosophy Psychiatry Psychol. 2017;24(1):77–92.  https://doi.org/10.1353/ppp.2017.0011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hing N, Russell A, Tolchard B, Nower L. Risk factors for gambling problems: an analysis by gender. J Gambl Stud. 2016;32(2):511–34.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10899-015-9548-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yakovenko I, Hodgins DC. A scoping review of co-morbidity in individuals with disordered gambling. Int Gambl Stud. 2018;18(1):143–72.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2017.1364400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Subramaniam M, Chua BY, Abdin E, Pang S, Satghare P, Vaingankar JA, et al. Prevalence and correlates of Internet gaming problem among Internet users: results from an Internet survey. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2016;45(5):174–83.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hasin D, Keyes K. The epidemiology of alcohol and drug disorders. In: Johnson BA, editor. Addiction medicine. New York: Springer; 2011. p. 23–49.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brand M, Young KS, Laier C, Wolfling K, Potenza MN. Integrating psychological and neurobiological considerations regarding the development and maintenance of specific Internet-use disorders: an Interaction of Person-Affect-Cognition-Execution (I-PACE) model. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016;71:252–66.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.08.033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rothman. Modern epidemiology. Boston/Toronto: Little, Brown and Company; 1986.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Petry NM, Stinson FS, Grant BF. Comorbidity of DSM-IV pathological gambling and other psychiatric disorders: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. J Clin Psychiatry. 2005;66(5):564–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kessler RC, Hwang I, LaBrie R, Petukhova M, Sampson NA, Winters KC, et al. DSM-IV pathological gambling in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Psychol Med. 2008;38:1351–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fam JY. Prevalence of internet gaming disorder in adolescents: a meta-analysis across three decades. Scand J Psychol. 2018;59(5):524–31.  https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kuss DJ, Griffiths MD, Karila L, Billieux J. Internet addiction: a systematic review of epidemiological research for the last decade. Curr Pharm Des. 2014;20(25):4026–52.  https://doi.org/10.2174/13816128113199990617
  17. 177.
    •• Mihara S, Higuchi S. Cross-sectional and longitudinal epidemiological studies of Internet gaming disorder: a systematic review of the literature. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2017;71(7):425–44.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pcn.12532 This is a comprehensive review on epidemiological studies in the area of gaming disorder. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    •• Billieux J, King DL, Higuchi S, Achab S, Bowden-Jones H, Hao W, et al. Functional impairment matters in the screening and diagnosis of gaming disorder. J Behav Addict. 2017;6(3):285–9.  https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.6.2017.036 This article highlights the need to consider functional impairment in behavioral addictions. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Király O, Nagygyörgy K, Koronczai B, Griffiths MD, Demetrovics Z. Assessment of problematic internet use and online video gaming. In: Aboujaoude E, Starcevic V, editors. Mental health in the digital age: grave dangers, great promise. New York: Oxford University Press; 2015. p. 46–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Laconi S, Rodgers RF, Chabrol H. The measurement of Internet addiction: a critical review of existing scales and their psychometric properties. Comput Human Behav. 2014;41:190–202.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    King DL, Haagsma MC, Delfabbro PH, Gradisar M, Griffiths MD. Toward a consensus definition of pathological video-gaming: a systematic review of psychometric assessment tools. Clin Psychol Rev. 2013;33(3):331–42.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2013.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pearcy BTD, Roberts LD, McEvoy PM. Psychometric testing of the personal Internet gaming disorder evaluation-9: a new measure designed to assess Internet gaming disorder. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2016;19(5):335–41.  https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2015.0534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vadlin S, Aslund C, Nilsson KW. Development and content validity of a screening instrument for gaming addiction in adolescents: the Gaming Addiction Identification Test (GAIT). Scand J Psychol. 2015;56(4):458–66.  https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pontes HM, Kiraly O, Demetrovics Z, Griffiths MD. The conceptualisation and measurement of DSM-5 Internet Gaming Disorder: the development of the IGD-20 Test. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):9.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0110137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pontes HM, Griffiths MD. Measuring DSM-5 internet gaming disorder: development and validation of a short psychometric scale. Comput Hum Behav. 2015;45:137–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kiraly O, Sleczka P, Pontes HM, Urban R, Griffiths MD, Demetrovics Z. Validation of the ten-item Internet Gaming Disorder Test (IGDT-10) and evaluation of the nine DSM-5 Internet Gaming Disorder criteria. Addict Behav. 2017;64:253–60.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.11.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lemmens JS, Valkenburg PM, Gentile DA. The Internet Gaming Disorder Scale. Psychol Assess. 2015;27(2):567–82.  https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zadra S, Bischof G, Besser B, Bischof A, Meyer C, John U, et al. The association between Internet addiction and personality disorders in a general population-based sample. J Behav Addict. 2016;5(4):691–9.  https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.5.2016.086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Maraz A, Kiraly O, Demetrovics Z. Commentary on: are we overpathologizing everyday life? A tenable blueprint for behavioral addiction research: the diagnostic pitfalls of surveys: if you score positive on a test of addiction, you still have a good chance not to be addicted. J Behav Addict. 2015;4(3):151–4.  https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.4.2015.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jeong H, Yim HW, Lee SY, Lee HK, Potenza MN, Kwon JH, et al. Discordance between self-report and clinical diagnosis of Internet gaming disorder in adolescents. Sci Rep. 2018;8:10084.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-28478-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bethlehem J. Selection bias in web surveys. Int Stat Rev. 2010;78:161–88.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-5823.2010.00112.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Greenacre ZA. The importance of selection bias in internet surveys. Open J Stat. 2016;6:ID:67313.  https://doi.org/10.4236/ojs.2016.63035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rumpf HJ, Bischof G, Hapke U, Meyer C, John U. Studies on natural recovery from alcohol dependence: sample selection bias by media solicitation? Addiction. 2000;95(5):765–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    • Starcevic V, Billieux J, Schimmenti A. Selfitis and behavioural addiction: a plea for terminological and conceptual rigour. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2018;52(10):919–20.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867418797442 This article highlights to be careful in proposing behavioral addictions. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Robins LN, Wing J, Wittchen HU. The Composite International Diagnostic Interview: an epidemiological instrument suitable for use in conjunction with different diagnostic systems and in different cultures. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1988;45:1069–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fineberg NA, Demetrovics Z, Stein DJ, Ioannidis K, Potenza MN, Grunblatt E, et al. Manifesto for a European research network into Problematic Usage of the Internet. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2018;28(11):1232–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroneuro.2018.08.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans-Jürgen Rumpf
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dominique Brandt
    • 1
  • Zsolt Demetrovics
    • 2
  • Joël Billieux
    • 3
  • Natacha Carragher
    • 4
  • Matthias Brand
    • 5
  • Henrietta Bowden-Jones
    • 6
  • Afarin Rahimi-Movaghar
    • 7
  • Sawitri Assanangkornchai
    • 8
  • Renata Glavak-Tkalic
    • 9
  • Guilherme Borges
    • 10
  • Hae-Kook Lee
    • 11
  • Florian Rehbein
    • 12
  • Naomi A. Fineberg
    • 13
  • Karl Mann
    • 14
  • Marc N. Potenza
    • 15
  • Dan J. Stein
    • 16
  • Susumu Higuchi
    • 17
  • Daniel King
    • 18
  • John B. Saunders
    • 19
  • Vladimir Poznyak
    • 20
  1. 1.Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Center for Integrative Psychiatry, Research Group S:TEPUniversity of LübeckLübeckGermany
  2. 2.Institute of PsychologyELTE Eötvös Loránd UniversityBudapestHungary
  3. 3.Addictive and Compulsive Behaviours Laboratory, Institute for Health and BehaviourUniversity of LuxembourgEsch-sur-AlzetteLuxembourg
  4. 4.Department of Mental Health and Substance AbuseWHO HeadquartersGenevaSwitzerland
  5. 5.General Psychology: Cognition and Center for Behavioral Addiction Research (CeBAR)University of Duisburg-EssenDuisburgGermany
  6. 6.Central North West London NHS Trust and Division of Brain ScienceImperial College LondonLondonUK
  7. 7.Iranian National Center for Addiction StudiesTehran University of Medical SciencesTehranIran
  8. 8.Epidemiology Unit and Centre for Alcohol Studies (INCAS), Faculty of MedicinePrince of Songkla UniversitySongkhlaThailand
  9. 9.Institute of Social Sciences Ivo PilarZagrebCroatia
  10. 10.National Institute of PsychiatryMexico CityMexico
  11. 11.Department of Psychiatry, College of MedicineThe Catholic University of KoreaSeoulSouth Korea
  12. 12.Criminological Research Institute Lower SaxonyHannoverGermany
  13. 13.University of HertfordshireUniversity of Cambridge, and Hertfordshire Partnership University NHS Foundation TrustHatfieldUK
  14. 14.Central Institute of Mental HealthUniversity of HeidelbergMannheimGermany
  15. 15.Departments of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, Child Study CenterYale University School of Medicine, and the Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling and Connecticut Mental Health CenterNew HavenUSA
  16. 16.Department of Psychiatry and Mental Health, SA MRC Unit on Risk & Resilience in Mental DisordersUniversity of Cape TownCape TownSouth Africa
  17. 17.National Hospital Organization Kurihama Medical and Addiction CenterYokosukaJapan
  18. 18.School of PsychologyThe University of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  19. 19.Centre for Youth Substance Abuse ResearchThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  20. 20.Department of Mental Health and Substance AbuseWHO HeadquartersGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations