Frequently Asked Questions

Overall preparedness was limited. In this survey, 44% of providers felt confident recognizing internet gaming disorder, 29% felt confident managing it, and 37% reported familiarity with diagnostic criteria, while 81% said they needed additional training.

At the same time, most respondents viewed internet gaming disorder as clinically important: 84% endorsed its clinical significance, 87% believed it can worsen psychiatric comorbidities, and 79% agreed that early recognition improves patient outcomes.

Yes. Psychiatric providers reported substantially greater confidence and familiarity than internal medicine providers. They were more likely to agree that they could recognize and diagnose internet gaming disorder (66.7% vs 7.1%, P<.001), manage it (41.0% vs 7.1%, P=.002), and were familiar with diagnostic criteria (51.3% vs 10.7%, P<.001).

Psychiatrists were also more likely to believe that internet gaming disorder worsens psychiatric comorbidities (92.3% vs 67.9%, P=.01) and that early recognition improves outcomes (87.2% vs 57.1%, P=.005). Even so, training needs remained high in both groups, with 89.7% of psychiatric providers and 57.1% of internal medicine providers endorsing a need for further training (P=.002).

In this study, more frequent clinical exposure to problematic gaming was associated with greater self-reported confidence and familiarity. Compared with providers who rarely encountered internet gaming disorder, those seeing it from a few times per month to daily were more likely to say it was clinically significant (95.5% vs 71.1%, P=.025), feel confident recognizing it (72.7% vs 26.7%, P<.001), feel confident managing it (50.0% vs 15.6%, P=.003), and report familiarity with diagnostic criteria (63.6% vs 20.0%, P<.001).

However, greater exposure was also associated with more perceived training need: 95.5% of higher-exposure clinicians endorsed a need for additional training versus 66.7% of those with rare exposure (P=.009).

Most providers in this survey supported family involvement, with 79% agreeing that internet gaming disorder treatment would benefit from active family involvement.

Clinicians who interacted with concerned family members more often were also more likely to report confidence recognizing internet gaming disorder (68.2% vs 28.9%, P=.002), managing it (45.5% vs 17.8%, P=.016), and greater familiarity with diagnostic criteria (59.1% vs 22.2%, P=.003). They were also more likely to endorse a need for additional training (90.9% vs 68.9%, P=.047).

Clinical exposure was limited in this sample. 67.2% of participants said they rarely encountered patients affected by internet gaming disorder, and the same proportion rarely interacted with concerned family members.

Only 18% reported seeing internet gaming disorder cases several times per week or more, and 88.1% said they rarely referred families to internet gaming disorder-related support services.

Providers reported several gaps in readiness. Only 37% said they were familiar with diagnostic criteria, 43% were uncertain about treatment efficacy, and 51% perceived barriers to integrating internet gaming disorder care into practice.

The discussion in Health Care Providers and Internet Gaming Disorder: Attitudes, Knowledge, and Clinical Readiness notes that educational efforts may need to address diagnostic frameworks, available psychotherapeutic approaches such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, motivational interviewing, and group-based interventions, referral pathways, and the role of treating co-occurring conditions such as depression and anxiety. The authors also note that there is currently no US Food and Drug Administration-approved pharmacotherapy for internet gaming disorder.

This was an exploratory cross-sectional online survey of clinicians in psychiatry and internal medicine at a single large academic medical center, distributed through departmental listservs between September and October 2025.

Eligible participants were MD/DO physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants aged 18 years or older who were currently providing clinical care in those departments. Of 71 respondents, 67 completed at least 1 survey item and were included in the final analysis.

The survey assessed confidence in diagnosing and managing internet gaming disorder, familiarity with diagnostic criteria, training needs, and related attitudes using 7-point Likert scales that were later grouped into agree versus neutral/disagree for the main analyses.

The main limitations are that the study was conducted at a single academic medical center, had modest subgroup sizes, and used a cross-sectional design, which means the observed associations cannot be interpreted as causal.

The outcomes were also based on self-reported confidence rather than objectively measured diagnostic accuracy. In addition, the survey included only internal medicine and psychiatry providers, so it did not assess other relevant specialties and professions such as pediatrics, neurology, or clinical psychology.