ABSTRACT
Problematic online betting among adolescents has attracted considerable public attention internationally for the last two decades. Although the online betting prevalence rate in Turkey is unclear, some reports indicate that it could be more pervasive than is currently estimated. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of problematic online betting, common behaviors of youth related to betting, and to identify the effect of family on online betting among Turkish adolescents. We surveyed 6116 adolescents aged between 12 and 18 in Istanbul to determine if they are problematic Internet users for betting. Although 756 (12.4%) adolescents reported that they play online betting, only 176 adolescents (2.9%) were classified as problematic Internet users. Thus, we collected further data from those 176 adolescents, 14.8% of which were female. A significant positive correlation was found between Internet Addiction (IA) and duration of betting. Almost 61% of participants expressed that they prefer to be online because they do not have better things to do. Almost a quarter of the participants started online betting between 10 and 12 years of age. All participants know someone who bets online. In terms of frequency, these are friends, relatives, siblings, and parents, respectively. Although there is no relationship between family structure and IA among adolescents who are problematic users, participants who live in an unstable family have higher IA scores than participants who live in a stable family.
Subject(s)
Adolescent Behavior/psychology , Behavior, Addictive/epidemiology , Gambling/epidemiology , Internet , Adolescent , Behavior, Addictive/psychology , Child , Female , Gambling/psychology , Humans , Male , Parents , Prevalence , Surveys and Questionnaires , Turkey/epidemiologyABSTRACT
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.
