1Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Medical School, Nepean Clinical School, Discipline of Psychiatry, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
2College of Education, Psychology, & Social Work, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
J Behav Addict. 2020 Dec 8;9(4):915-919. doi: 10.1556/2006.2020.00083.
This article suggests that the type of Internet-enabled device should not be prioritised when conceptualizing diagnostic categories of addictive online behaviours. The diagnostic distinction between "predominantly mobile" and "predominantly non-mobile" forms of Internet use disorders (IUD) is not empirically based, may not be clinically useful and may lead to "diagnostic inflation." Problems with the concepts of smartphone use disorder and IUD on which the proposed distinction is largely based call for their re-examination. Future proposals for the taxonomy of addictive behaviours may not need to be based on online/offline and mobile/non-mobile dichotomies.
本文认为，在构思成瘾性网络行为的诊断类别时，不应优先考虑支持互联网的设备类型。将“主要是移动设备”和“主要是非移动设备”的互联网使用障碍（IUD）形式进行诊断区分，没有实证依据，可能在临床上没有用处，并且可能导致“诊断过度”。基于所提议的区分而提出的智能手机使用障碍和 IUD 的概念存在问题，需要对其进行重新审查。未来成瘾行为分类学的建议可能不需要基于在线/离线和移动/非移动的二分法。
