Note: Although this publication primarily focuses on high quality scientific findings, I believe it is also important to be able to identify shortcomings. The following entry serves as a critique and highlights the criteria needed to be considered “high quality.”
Video games are no longer just for children or fringe cultures. They have made their way to mainstream, and more and more adults are jumping on the band wagon. By their nature, video games often require players to be sedentary for hours at a time to play a game to completion. This has piqued the interest of a group of researchers out of New York University. In the present study, they explored how video game activity affected lifestyle behaviors in adults. They looked at both online and offline games and used “non-gamers” as a control group. They administered a survey to all participants and found that online gamers were more sedentary and consumed more calories from sugar sweetened beverages than non-gamers. The authors were on the right track in wanting to investigate this under-researched population, however, their methodology and design require closer review.
The authors appear to be well versed in the “gaming world” and clearly explained some of the nuance that exists between various gaming platforms. While this is an interesting area of research, the authors greatly overstated the impacts gaming may have on lifestyle without sufficient supporting evidence. They state “…online games…have resulted in death because of overexhaustion.” After review of the original news article, it described a man who died of cardiac arrest while playing computer games at an internet café but makes no mention of over exhaustion. The material has been misrepresented by the authors in an effort to make a more shocking case. Moreover, a non-peer reviewed newspaper article is inappropriate reference material for a scholarly journal article. There is no theoretical framework defined for the formation of the hypotheses, nor are the hypotheses clearly defined. The term “lifestyle behaviors” needs to be more clearly defined in the present study in order to determine where this research will fit in the broader literature.
The sample was fully described with information about age, sex, education, marital status, race/ethnicity, and weight status. Most participants were white, male, and single. No comment was offered on whether or not this is reflective of the gaming population at large, but it may limit the generalizability of the results. The study was clearly defined as cross-sectional, as it was only assessing participants at one, discrete time point.
Three previously validated questionnaires were used to measure the construct of “lifestyle behaviors.” All of these questionnaires are multiple item giving them a higher probability of getting reliable information. These methods do, however, rely solely on self-reported data making it difficult to be sure the information is accurate. Based on the questionnaires used, it appears that food and beverage intake and level of activity are being used as proxies for “lifestyle.” Statistics and results were clearly presented. If eating behaviors, activity, and beverage consumption are in fact the constructs of interest, all were adequately addressed in the results section. More clear definitions of the hypotheses are needed in order to confirm them in this section.
The summary of the findings appears to be relatively accurate. The authors repeatedly compare gaming with watching television, however this presents some contradictory arguments. They stated that unlike television, video games do not have commercials and thus do not provide any break in the action. This seems to ignore the rise of Netflix and other streaming services that allow viewers to “binge watch” commercial free for unrestricted periods of time. In contrast, they argue that video game advertisements are more focused on fast food and sugar sweetened beverages than television. No evidence is provided to support this claim, and further investigation is needed to determine if there is a substantive difference between the two media outlets. The implications of this work for dietetic practice were discussed. It was argued that it is important for clinicians to be aware of the amount of time a patient is inactive, however, the evidence provided in the present study does not support the notion that being a gamer should be considered a risk factor for metabolic disease.
The present study confirmed previously held notions that time spent gaming contributes to overall inactivity, but did not provide further insight into the health of the gaming community. I would recommend that the authors review the current literature in the field to reevaluate the needs of the gaming community and make a stronger case for where this study fits in the larger picture.
Source:
Cemelli, C. M., Burris, J., & Woolf, K. (2016). Video games impact lifestyle behaviors in adults. Topics in Clinical Nutrition, 31(2), 96-110.