Figures like ESA hope for more conversation with WHO on "gaming disorder"

Just over a year ago the World Health Organisation raised a lot of eyebrows by adding "gaming disorder" to its list of 2018 diseases, which was given the following description:

"Gaming disorder is characterized by a pattern of persistent or recurrent gaming behaviour ('digital gaming' or 'video-gaming'), which may be online (i.e., over the internet) or offline, manifested by: 1) impaired control over gaming (e.g., onset, frequency, intensity, duration, termination, context); 2) increasing priority given to gaming to the extent that gaming takes precedence over other life interests and daily activities; and 3) continuation or escalation of gaming despite the occurrence of negative consequences."

Even back then the Entertainment Software Association (Or ESA, responsible for the likes of E3) responded by criticising the label, and now Reuters reports that figures in the industry - including the ESA - have discussed the issue with officials from WHO in Geneva, Switzerland last month.

"It's our hope that through continued dialogue we can help the WHO avoid rushed action and mistakes that could take years to correct," Entertainment Software Association (ESA) head Stanley Pierre-Louis said in a statement, with the ESA also asking for "more conversation and education."

Another meeting is reportedly planned for this year, but it doesn't seem as if this will include anybody involved with the development of games.

Several other bodies other than the ESA have reached out to GamesIndustry.biz to give statements, including the British trade body UKIE (UK Interactive Entertainment), who wrote the following:

"In the UK, over 30 million people play games; with over 2 billion people worldwide enjoying games safely and sensibly. Leading mental health experts have cautioned repeatedly that classifying 'Gaming Disorder' creates a risk of misdiagnosis for those who most need help and any decision about including gaming disorder must therefore be based on robust and unequivocal evidence."

"We hope that through continued dialogue, with us and the wider scientific community, the WHO will reconsider the mounting evidence put before them before the final version of ICD-11 is endorsed next year. We also hope that they can demonstrate a transparent and due process as this decision will have implications on national health systems across the world."

"The games industry takes its responsibility to players, particularly children, very seriously. We are committed to collaborating with stakeholders, researchers, policymakers, parents and carers, to ensure best practice in ratings, parental controls, and the wide range of tools that can be used to limit the time spent playing and promote health game play. We also work hard to let parents and carers know about how to play games safely and sensibly through resources such as askaboutgames.com."

What's more is that ISFE (Interactive Software Federation of Europe) also criticised the "lack of substantive evidence to justify this proposed classification, and by the lack of transparency in the classification process". Managing director Simon Little added:

"Classifying 'gaming disorder' under the mental health and addiction category of the ICD-11 list may well lead to abuse of diagnosis and misdiagnosis as such inclusion is not based on a high level of evidence, as would be required to formalise any other disorder."

WHO aren't expected to start reports on gaming disorder until 2022, so as to give them time to gather data, but no doubt these bodies will be hoping that they can get through to them before such time arises.

What do you make of the classification?