Collective Motivational Interviewing (CMI) for Adolescents With Internet Gaming Disorder

October 2, 2024 updated by: Dr. Tse Ka Wo, Hong Kong College of Technology

A Randomized Controlled Study of Collective Motivational Interviewing (CMI) for Adolescents With Internet Gaming Disorder

The present study examines the efficacy of CMI in reducing adolescent IGD symptoms and enhancing social support given by CSOs among adolescents with high risk of IGD (probable IGD cases screened positive by validated tools). It is hypothesized that the intervention group (with CMI plus IGD education materials for both the clients and his/her selected CSO) would show more improvements in reduction in the severity of IGD, motivation to change maladaptive gaming behaviour, craving on gaming, and social support obtained from CSOs than to the control group (only educational materials for both the client and the CSOs).

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Active, not recruiting

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Detailed Description

This study adopts a randomized controlled efficacy study with an open-label parallel-group design. The trial will be registered by the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform once the project is approved. Research participants will be recruited from the primary and secondary schools, and youth social services. After completing the screening process, research participants who are confirmed to fit the inclusion criteria will be randomly assigned to the intervention group with CMI intervention plus IGD education materials to both adolescents with IGD and their CSO or the control group with IGD education materials alone. The present study sets four-time points to track the change in the between-group difference of the primary and secondary outcomes from the baseline (T0) to post-intervention (T1), 3-month follow-up (T2), and 6-month follow-up (T3).

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Estimated)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
172

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Contact

The name and contact information for the person who can answer enrollment questions for a clinical study. Each location where the study is being conducted may also have a specific contact, who may be better able to answer those questions.

Study Contact Backup

Study Locations

  • Hong Kong
      • Shatin, Hong Kong
        • Hong Kong College of Technology

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Child

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Description

Inclusion Criteria for Adolescents:

  • Aged between 10-16
  • Probable IGD condition screened by the Internet Gaming Disorder Scale-Short-Form (IGDS9-SF) reaching the cut-off value at 21, those at high risk of having IGD but no IGD cases with clinical diagnosis, although the symptoms measured by IGDS9-SF are equivalent to DSM-5 IGD criteria)
  • Hong Kong ID card holder
  • Chinese speaking
  • Student identity
  • Possessing an electronic mobile device or computer
  • Willingness to participate in the intervention/control group and complete four surveys (baseline, post-intervention, 3-month follow-up, and 6-month follow-up)
  • Can nominate a CSO (e.g., parents) [client's autonomy is a critical factor to facilitate motivation posited by the self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2020) (9) to obtain informed consent and parental consent

Inclusion Criteria for CSO:

  • Aged greater than 18 years
  • Having a close relationship with the adolescent with probable IGD (as rated by participants being generally supportive of the participants)
  • Being willing to participate in the present study and provide informed consent

Exclusion Criteria for Adolescents:

  • Participants who have psychiatric problems such as psychosis, significant cognitive impairment and/or receiving active and structured psychotherapy about IGD elsewhere will be excluded (Nielsen et al., 2021).

Exclusion Criteria for CSO:

  • Participants who have psychosis, aggressive or suicidal behavior
  • Having life-threatening medical conditions

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
Other: Control group (Education Materials)
After completing the baseline screening, survey and randomization, the participants in the control group will receive educational materials regarding topics including: (1) what IGD is and its consequences, (2) how to communicate with parents about the gaming time, and (3) how to develop a healthy lifestyle, etc.
Other: Control group (Education Materials)
The participants in the control group will receive IGD educational materials.
Experimental: Intervention group (Collective Motivational Interviewing plus Education Materials)
Participants in the intervention group will be given the same Internet Gaming Disorder (IGD) education materials as those in the control group, thus, they will further participate in four counseling sessions with Collective Motivational Interviewing (CMI) (each session 60 mins). In the first session, adolescents with Internet Gaming Disorder will be implemented a standard MI session to elicit and strengthen the client's motivation to change. In the second session, a nominated CSO of the client will participate in a standard MI session to elicit their motivation to help the client toward change and prepare positive attitudes of CSO for the conjoint session. Afterward, the third and fourth sessions (75 mins) will be conjoint sessions. The Collective Motivational Interviewing practitioners will create a safe platform for both parties to share their perspectives with openness and trustfulness, in turn, to reach an agreed goal (e.g., develop a change plan on internet gaming behaviors).
Behavioral: Collective Motivational Interviewing plus Education Materials
The participants in the intervention group will receive IGD educational materials as well as four counseling sessions of CMI intervention.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Severity of IGD
Time Frame: Change from Baseline (T0) Severity of IGD at posttest (T1: After intervention)
The nine-item Internet Gaming Disorder Scale-Short-Form (IGDS9-SF) are used to detect the change in the severity of IGD. It is the first brief standardized psychometric tool of IGD based on the nine DSM-5 IGD criteria. This instrument has been translated into 15 languages and is widely used in research and clinical settings. In addition, a validated Chinese version with satisfactory psychometric properties is available (Qin et al., 2020). The items were rated by using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Never to 5 = Very often).
Change from Baseline (T0) Severity of IGD at posttest (T1: After intervention)
Severity of IGD
Time Frame: Change from Baseline (T0) Severity of IGD at 3-month follow-up (T2)
The nine-item Internet Gaming Disorder Scale-Short-Form (IGDS9-SF) are used to detect the change in the severity of IGD. It is the first brief standardized psychometric tool of IGD based on the nine DSM-5 IGD criteria. This instrument has been translated into 15 languages and is widely used in research and clinical settings. In addition, a validated Chinese version with satisfactory psychometric properties is available (Qin et al., 2020). The items were rated by using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Never to 5 = Very often).
Change from Baseline (T0) Severity of IGD at 3-month follow-up (T2)
Severity of IGD
Time Frame: Change from Baseline (T0) Severity of IGD at 6-month follow-up (T3)
The nine-item Internet Gaming Disorder Scale-Short-Form (IGDS9-SF) are used to detect the change in the severity of IGD. It is the first brief standardized psychometric tool of IGD based on the nine DSM-5 IGD criteria. This instrument has been translated into 15 languages and is widely used in research and clinical settings. In addition, a validated Chinese version with satisfactory psychometric properties is available (Qin et al., 2020). The items were rated by using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Never to 5 = Very often).
Change from Baseline (T0) Severity of IGD at 6-month follow-up (T3)

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Motivation to change maladaptive gaming behaviour
Time Frame: Change from Baseline (T0) Motivation to change maladaptive gaming behaviour at posttest (T1: After intervention)
Contemplation Ladder for Internet Gaming (CL-LG), which is derived from the Contemplation Ladder measure the motivation to quit smoking (Biener & Abrams, 1991), are employed. Contemplation Ladder for drug use problems is commonly used in clinical settings and research in Hong Kong (Siu et al., 2018). The instrument measures the motivation to abstain from maladaptive gaming behaviors based on a single brief option of 11 rungs and five types of statements. The instrument is rated on a scale from 0 to 10, with each point representing a specific statement showing a corresponding stage of change. The ladder has been used in smoking cessation studies, which displayed strong reliability and validity with strong intercorrelations (Pearson's r = .82 - .98) (Rustin & Tate, 1993).
Change from Baseline (T0) Motivation to change maladaptive gaming behaviour at posttest (T1: After intervention)
Motivation to change maladaptive gaming behaviour
Time Frame: Change from Baseline (T0) Motivation to change maladaptive gaming behaviour at 3-month follow-up (T2)
Contemplation Ladder for Internet Gaming (CL-LG), which is derived from the Contemplation Ladder measure the motivation to quit smoking (Biener & Abrams, 1991), are employed. Contemplation Ladder for drug use problems is commonly used in clinical settings and research in Hong Kong (Siu et al., 2018). The instrument measures the motivation to abstain from maladaptive gaming behaviors based on a single brief option of 11 rungs and five types of statements. The instrument is rated on a scale from 0 to 10, with each point representing a specific statement showing a corresponding stage of change. The ladder has been used in smoking cessation studies, which displayed strong reliability and validity with strong intercorrelations (Pearson's r = .82 - .98) (Rustin & Tate, 1993).
Change from Baseline (T0) Motivation to change maladaptive gaming behaviour at 3-month follow-up (T2)
Motivation to change maladaptive gaming behaviour
Time Frame: Change from Baseline (T0) Motivation to change maladaptive gaming behaviour at 6-month follow-up (T3)
Contemplation Ladder for Internet Gaming (CL-LG), which is derived from the Contemplation Ladder measure the motivation to quit smoking (Biener & Abrams, 1991), are employed. Contemplation Ladder for drug use problems is commonly used in clinical settings and research in Hong Kong (Siu et al., 2018). The instrument measures the motivation to abstain from maladaptive gaming behaviors based on a single brief option of 11 rungs and five types of statements. The instrument is rated on a scale from 0 to 10, with each point representing a specific statement showing a corresponding stage of change. The ladder has been used in smoking cessation studies, which displayed strong reliability and validity with strong intercorrelations (Pearson's r = .82 - .98) (Rustin & Tate, 1993).
Change from Baseline (T0) Motivation to change maladaptive gaming behaviour at 6-month follow-up (T3)
Craving for Internet Gaming
Time Frame: Change from Baseline (T0) Craving for Internet Gaming at posttest (T1: After intervention)
Craving for Internet Gaming Scale (CIGS) is used to measure respondents' intensity, frequency, duration of their craving, and capability to resist acting on their craving for a particular period of time. It comprises five-item, scoring from 0 to 6 for each item. Respondents with higher scores tend to have higher levels of gaming craving (Cronbach's alpha was .88-.91) (Savci & Griffiths, 2019).
Change from Baseline (T0) Craving for Internet Gaming at posttest (T1: After intervention)
Craving for Internet Gaming
Time Frame: Change from Baseline (T0) Craving for Internet Gaming at 3-month follow-up (T2)
Craving for Internet Gaming Scale (CIGS) is used to measure respondents' intensity, frequency, duration of their craving, and capability to resist acting on their craving for a particular period of time. It comprises five-item, scoring from 0 to 6 for each item. Respondents with higher scores tend to have higher levels of gaming craving (Cronbach's alpha was .88-.91) (Savci & Griffiths, 2019).
Change from Baseline (T0) Craving for Internet Gaming at 3-month follow-up (T2)
Craving for Internet Gaming
Time Frame: Change from Baseline (T0) Craving for Internet Gaming at 6-month follow-up (T3)
Craving for Internet Gaming Scale (CIGS) is used to measure respondents' intensity, frequency, duration of their craving, and capability to resist acting on their craving for a particular period of time. It comprises five-item, scoring from 0 to 6 for each item. Respondents with higher scores tend to have higher levels of gaming craving (Cronbach's alpha was .88-.91) (Savci & Griffiths, 2019).
Change from Baseline (T0) Craving for Internet Gaming at 6-month follow-up (T3)
Social support from CSO
Time Frame: Change from Baseline (T0) Social support from CSO at posttest (T1: After intervention)
The 4-item significant other subscales of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) will be used. It is a self-reporting instrument designed for assessing the level of perceived social support from significant others. The items are scored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 7 (very strongly agree). The Cantonese version has demonstrated a high internal consistency coefficient with a Cronbach's alpha of .89 (Chou, 2000).
Change from Baseline (T0) Social support from CSO at posttest (T1: After intervention)
Social support from CSO
Time Frame: Change from Baseline (T0) Social support from CSO at 3-month follow-up (T2)
The 4-item significant other subscales of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) will be used. It is a self-reporting instrument designed for assessing the level of perceived social support from significant others. The items are scored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 7 (very strongly agree). The Cantonese version has demonstrated a high internal consistency coefficient with a Cronbach's alpha of .89 (Chou, 2000).
Change from Baseline (T0) Social support from CSO at 3-month follow-up (T2)
Social support from CSO
Time Frame: Change from Baseline (T0) Social support from CSO at 6-month follow-up (T3)
The 4-item significant other subscales of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) will be used. It is a self-reporting instrument designed for assessing the level of perceived social support from significant others. The items are scored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 7 (very strongly agree). The Cantonese version has demonstrated a high internal consistency coefficient with a Cronbach's alpha of .89 (Chou, 2000).
Change from Baseline (T0) Social support from CSO at 6-month follow-up (T3)
Child-Parent Relationship
Time Frame: Change from Baseline (T0) Child-Parent Relationship at posttest (T1: After intervention)
The Child-Parent Relationship Scale (C-PRS). The items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 5 (very strongly agree).
Change from Baseline (T0) Child-Parent Relationship at posttest (T1: After intervention)
Child-Parent Relationship
Time Frame: Change from Baseline (T0) Child-Parent Relationship at 3-month follow-up (T2)
The Child-Parent Relationship Scale (C-PRS). The items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 5 (very strongly agree).
Change from Baseline (T0) Child-Parent Relationship at 3-month follow-up (T2)
Child-Parent Relationship
Time Frame: Change from Baseline (T0) Child-Parent Relationship at 6-month follow-up (T3)
The Child-Parent Relationship Scale (C-PRS). The items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 5 (very strongly agree).
Change from Baseline (T0) Child-Parent Relationship at 6-month follow-up (T3)
Parental Stress
Time Frame: Change from Baseline (T0) Parental Stress at posttest (T1: After intervention)
The 17-items Parental Stress Scale (PSS). The items are scored on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 6 (very strongly agree).
Change from Baseline (T0) Parental Stress at posttest (T1: After intervention)
Parental Stress
Time Frame: Change from Baseline (T0) Parental Stress at 3-month follow-up (T2)
The 17-items Parental Stress Scale (PSS). The items are scored on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 6 (very strongly agree).
Change from Baseline (T0) Parental Stress at 3-month follow-up (T2)
Parental Stress
Time Frame: Change from Baseline (T0) Parental Stress at 6-month follow-up (T3)
The 17-items Parental Stress Scale (PSS). The items are scored on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 6 (very strongly agree).
Change from Baseline (T0) Parental Stress at 6-month follow-up (T3)
Motivation for treatment
Time Frame: Change from Baseline (T0) Motivation for treatment at posttest (T1: After intervention)
The 8-item Motivation for Youth's Treatment Scale (MYTS). The items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 5 (very strongly agree).
Change from Baseline (T0) Motivation for treatment at posttest (T1: After intervention)
Motivation for treatment
Time Frame: Change from Baseline (T0) Motivation for treatment at 3-month follow-up (T2)
The 8-item Motivation for Youth's Treatment Scale (MYTS). The items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 5 (very strongly agree).
Change from Baseline (T0) Motivation for treatment at 3-month follow-up (T2)
Motivation for treatment
Time Frame: Change from Baseline (T0) Motivation for treatment at 6-month follow-up (T3)
The 8-item Motivation for Youth's Treatment Scale (MYTS). The items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 5 (very strongly agree).
Change from Baseline (T0) Motivation for treatment at 6-month follow-up (T3)

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
Hong Kong College of Technology

Collaborators

Collaborators

An organization other than the sponsor that provides support for a clinical study. This support may include activities related to funding, design, implementation, data analysis, or reporting.
The University of Hong Kong
Fudan University
Chinese University of Hong Kong
Nottingham Trent University

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
June 1, 2023

Primary Completion (Estimated)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
December 31, 2025

Study Completion (Estimated)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
December 31, 2026

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
May 9, 2023

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
June 21, 2023

First Posted (Actual)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
June 26, 2023

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
October 3, 2024

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
October 2, 2024

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
October 1, 2024

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • UGC/FDS21/H01/22

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

NO

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings