1. Problematic gaming in adolescents is characterized by impaired control over gaming, prioritizing gaming over other activities, continuation despite negative consequences, and impairment of personal functioning.
2. Parent and family factors play a significant role in adolescent problematic gaming, with positive parenting and family functioning being protective factors and negative parenting and family dynamics being risk factors.
3. In-session gaming can be used as a therapeutic tool in treating adolescent problematic gaming.
The article "In‐session gaming as a tool in treating adolescent problematic gaming" discusses the use of in-session gaming as a therapeutic tool for treating adolescents with problematic gaming. The article provides an overview of Gaming Disorder (GD) and Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD), which are characterized by impaired control over gaming, increasing priority given to gaming over other activities, continuation or escalation of gaming despite negative consequences, and impairment of personal, family, social, educational, or occupational functioning. However, the article acknowledges that there is debate about the diagnostic validity and clinical utility of these disorders.
The article also highlights the importance of parent and family factors in adolescent problematic gaming. It distinguishes six categories of risk and protective parent and family factors: problems faced by the parent(s), child abuse, co-parental teamwork, parenting style, family attachment, and family functioning. Positive parenting and positive family functioning were found to be connected to lower rates of adolescent problematic gaming while negative parenting and negative family functioning were associated with higher rates.
While the article provides useful information on adolescent problematic gaming and its treatment using in-session gaming therapy, it has some potential biases. Firstly, it only focuses on one type of therapy for treating adolescent problematic gaming without exploring other possible treatments or their effectiveness. Secondly, it does not provide enough evidence to support its claims about the effectiveness of in-session gaming therapy. Thirdly, it does not explore counterarguments or potential risks associated with this type of therapy.
Additionally, the article seems to promote in-session gaming therapy as a solution without acknowledging its limitations or potential drawbacks. It also presents only one side of the argument regarding GD and IGD diagnoses without exploring alternative perspectives.
Overall, while the article provides valuable insights into adolescent problematic gaming and its treatment using in-session gaming therapy, it could benefit from presenting a more balanced perspective on different types of therapies available for treating this issue. Additionally, it should provide more evidence to support its claims and explore potential risks and limitations associated with in-session gaming therapy.