Browse ORBilu by Open Access
- What it is and what it isn't
- Green Road / Gold Road?
- Ready to Publish. Now What?
- How can I support the OA movement?
- Where can I learn more?
ORBilu is a project developed by
   Maladaptive player-game relationships in problematic gaming and gaming disorder: A systematic review.; ; et al in Clinical psychology review (2019), 73 While certain player vulnerabilities are known to increase risk of gaming disorder (GD), the topic of maladaptive playerxgame relationships in GD has received limited attention. This review aimed to: (1 ... [more ▼] While certain player vulnerabilities are known to increase risk of gaming disorder (GD), the topic of maladaptive playerxgame relationships in GD has received limited attention. This review aimed to: (1) identify game types associated with GD symptomatology; and (2) evaluate individual differences (e.g., age, personality, depression) in the relationship between gaming and GD symptomatology. A systematic review of six databases identified 23 studies of the relations between game types and GD, including 13 studies employing multivariate analyses. Player vulnerabilities implicated in GD included impulsivity, risk-taking, psychopathological symptoms (e.g., depression, anxiety), and stronger gaming motivations (e.g., escapism, achievement). MMORPG involvement had the strongest positive association with GD. Problematic MMORPG players tend to have a socially anxious profile and may be attracted to the work-like roles and conventions of this genre. Problematic players of shooters tend to score higher on measures of sensation-seeking and impulsivity than other players. These findings suggest that GD may develop more readily and at more severe levels in complex, endless, socially driven games, irrespective of person-level characteristics. Some player vulnerabilities may selectively increase risk of GD for certain game types. Further research should investigate different player-game interactions to refine current models and interventions for GD. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 75 (1 UL) The efficacy of attentional distraction and sensory monitoring in chronic pain patients: A meta-analysisVan Ryckeghem, Dimitri  ; ; et alin Clinical Psychology Review (2018), 59 Attentional strategies, such as distraction and sensory monitoring, are often offered to reduce pain and pain-related distress. However, evidence for their efficacy in chronic pain patients is equivocal ... [more ▼] Attentional strategies, such as distraction and sensory monitoring, are often offered to reduce pain and pain-related distress. However, evidence for their efficacy in chronic pain patients is equivocal. We report a meta-analysis on the efficacy of distraction and sensory monitoring in chronic pain patients, and explore possible methodological and theoretical moderators. The scientific literature was searched for relevant articles, which were coded for methodological quality and several theoretical and methodological moderator variables. Only 10 articles fulfilled the search criteria. Eight studies allowed us to compare distraction with a control condition, two studies to compare sensory monitoring with a control condition, and four studies to compare the effect of distraction with the effect of sensory monitoring. Overall, results indicate that distraction did not differ from control in altering pain experience (k=8; Hedges’ g=0.10, ns) and distress (k=2; Hedges’ g=0.549). Sensory monitoring did also not alter pain experience (k=2; Hedges’ g=-.21, ns) and distress (k=1; Hedges’ g=-0.191, ns). We found no evidence to support the superiority of distraction or sensory monitoring in altering pain compared to control conditions. We offer guidance for future theory-driven research to investigate distraction and sensory monitoring in this largely unexplored field, albeit one replete with methodological difficulties. [less ▲] Detailed reference viewed: 146 (3 UL)Illness and symptom perception: a theoretical approach towards an integrative measurement modelPetersen, Sibylle ; ; et alin Clinical Psychology Review (2011), 31(3), 428-439 Detailed reference viewed: 112 (0 UL) |
||
