University of Hertfordshire


  • Hans Jürgen Rumpf
  • Sophia Achab
  • Joël Billieux
  • Henrietta Bowden-Jones
  • Natacha Carragher
  • Zsolt Demetrovics
  • Susumu Higuchi
  • Daniel L. King
  • Karl Mann
  • Marc Potenza
  • John B. Saunders
  • Max Abbott
  • Atul Ambekar
  • Osman Tolga Aricak
  • Sawitri Assanangkornchai
  • Norharlina Bahar
  • Guilherme Borges
  • Matthias Brand
  • Elda Mei-Lo Chan
  • Thomas Chung
  • Jeff Derevensky
  • Ahmad El Kashef
  • Michael Farrell
  • Claudia Gandin
  • Douglas A. Gentile
  • Mark D. Griffiths
  • Anna E. Goudriaan
  • Marie Grall-Bronnec
  • Wei Hao
  • David C. Hodgins
  • Patrick Ip
  • Orsolya Király
  • Hae Kook Lee
  • Daria Kuss
  • Jeroen S. Lemmens
  • Jiang Long
  • Olatz Lopez-Fernandez
  • Satoko Mihara
  • Nancy M. Petry
  • Halley M. Pontes
  • Afarin Rahimi-Movaghar
  • Florian Rehbein
  • Jürgen Rehm
  • Emanuele Scafato
  • Manoi Sharma
  • Daniel Spritzer
  • Dan J. Stein
  • Philip Tam
  • Aviv Weinstein
  • Hans Ulrich Wittchen
  • Klaus Wölfling
  • Daniele Zullino
  • Vladimir Poznyak
View graph of relations
Original languageEnglish
Number of pages6
Pages (from-to)556-561
JournalJournal of Behavioral Addictions
Journal publication date1 Sep 2018
Early online date2 Jul 2018
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2018


The proposed introduction of gaming disorder (GD) in the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) has led to a lively debate over the past year. Besides the broad support for the decision in the academic press, a recent publication by van Rooij et al. (2018) repeated the criticism raised against the inclusion of GD in ICD-11 by Aarseth et al. (2017). We argue that this group of researchers fails to recognize the clinical and public health considerations, which support the WHO perspective. It is important to recognize a range of biases that may influence this debate; in particular, the gaming industry may wish to diminish its responsibility by claiming that GD is not a public health problem, a position which maybe supported by arguments from scholars based in media psychology, computer games research, communication science, and related disciplines. However, just as with any other disease or disorder in the ICD-11, the decision whether or not to include GD is based on clinical evidence and public health needs. Therefore, we reiterate our conclusion that including GD reflects the essence of the ICD and will facilitate treatment and prevention for those who need it.


© 2018 The Author(s).

ID: 16687518