Computer Game Designed To Treat Depression As Effective As Traditional Treatment

New submitter sirlark writes "'Researchers at the University of Auckland tested an interactive 3D fantasy game called Sparx on a 94 youngsters diagnosed with depression whose average age was 15 and a half. Sparx invites a user to take on a series of seven challenges over four to seven weeks in which an avatar has to learn to deal with anger and hurt feelings and swap negative thoughts for helpful ones. Used for three months, Sparx was at least as effective as face-to-face conventional counselling, according to several depression rating scales. In addition, 44% of the Sparx group who carried out at least four of the seven challenges recovered completely. In the conventional treatment group, only 26% recovered fully.' One has to wonder if it's Sparx specifically — or gaming in general — that provides the most benefit, given that most of the symptoms of depression relate to a feeling of being unable to influence one's environment (powerlessness, helplessness, ennui, etc) and games are specifically designed to make one feel powerful but challenged (if they hit the sweet spot)."

Comments

"as effective" doesn't mean "effective"

[goodmanj]

For my money, this video game works as well as conventional counseling because conventional counseling doesn't work. People get better, sure, but they get better on their own. Time, improving life circumstances, and new friends are what end depression, not lying on a couch talking about your feelings.

Re:"as effective" doesn't mean "effective"

[Anonymous Coward]

Playing WoW when I was depressed was the most helpful thin, actually. I really didn't even want to talk to other people. Talking about it would have just made me feel worse and hopeless. The reward feeback system in the game made me feel good about myself, as I was able to achieve goals, play with friends, help newbies out, and win loot. I still worked, tried to be social, and got a little exercise, so I don't think it should be taken to the extreme like in South Park.

However, I'm sure any number of real life activities could replace a game. Good thing about games are that you can play them any time of day, you don't really have to rely on other people, and your dexterity doesn't have to be great so you can be drunk and/or high and not really risk getting into trouble.

Re:"as effective" doesn't mean "effective"

[w.hamra1987]

I can totally relate to that. Any sufficiently challenging game, with a decent reward system, and "feel good about yourself" moments would do.

But then comes times like this year, when you have lots of work to do, a senior project to finish by a very short deadline, a shitty boss, and add one or two nasty incidents, and you suddenly find yourself lacking the time to get into any video game, but quite to the contrary, you start feeling guilty when playing instead of working on the project, and the depression crawls back into you.

So it boils down to helping your depression vs helping your life? A question that is depressing itself :(

Re:"as effective" doesn't mean "effective"

[sarysa]

I've had it quite often myself, and I don't see why goodmanj got modded down for his statement. In fact for the longest time I blamed video games for making me more depressed, when it was actually the act of ceasing to play them that did so. Whoever wrote TFA really hit the nail on the head...at least for my case. It's all about feeling in control.

Problem is, to say "depression" is like saying "autism" or "cancer". So many varieties that no one solution works for all of them.

What's worked on mine is simple: I keep busy with regular projects, and give myself at least the illusion of control and accomplishment. May as well feel like I'm doing something while I'm hanging around.

Re:"as effective" doesn't mean "effective"

[Hatta]

You seem to be thinking of mild depression or even subclinical sadness

No, counseling is equally ineffective against major depression.

The last hundred years or so of medical research specifically tests for effectiveness VS a placebo, so it's not like people are just shooting in the dark here. (To throw you a bone, medications don't seem to be very effective against mild depression.)

The best supported counseling method, CBT, is no better than placebo for depression. Consider this metaanalysis Particularly look at figure 4 and see how the error bars for the effect size of CBT on depression overlaps the Y axis for every disorder except PTSD.

CBT is a well supported treatment for anxiety, not depression. No other form of therapy is well supported for anything at all. SSRIs, like you say are only effective in major depression. For those of us with mild depression, there is no well supported mainstream treatment at all.

Also, stop getting your medical knowledge from TV, it's wrong

Stop getting your medical information from salesmen (aka psychologists), it's wrong. These people have a vested interest in delivering you services, whether or not they're any help to you. A combination of confirmation bias on their part, and the placebo effect on your part fools both of you.

IMO, the real solution to depression, major and minor, is ketamine. It's safe, it's FDA approved, it's out of patent, and it's effective within hours and lasts for a week with one treatment. The only problem is you have to go through the entire battery of SSRIs, MAOIs, tricyclics and atypicals before they'll let you try something quick, easy, safe, and effective.

Not Sparx specifically

[wmbetts]

" One has to wonder if it's Sparx specifically — or gaming in general — that provides the most benefit, given that most of the symptoms of depression relate to a feeling of being unable to influence one's environment (powerlessness, helplessness, ennui, etc) and games are specifically designed to make one feel powerful but challenged (if they hit the sweet spot)."

The thing a lot of people especially in the age group tested lack are the emotional tools to deal with normal feelings such as anger and depression. One on one counseling helps the patient build those tools and if the game is designed with that in mind then yes it's Sparx not all games. If it were all video games that made a person feel empowered then I really doubt EMO would have ever been "invented".

Cure v. treatment

[girlintraining]

Depression can't be cured. It can be treated, very effectively, and the outcome will last a long time. But once you've had a depressive episode, you are more likely to have another. The longer and more severe the symptoms, the more likely you are to have a recurrance. Whatever it is that triggers depression can be abated, but it weakens the psychological fabric of the person it afflicts, permanently.

I don't know why this is, or the underlying mechanic. There are many studies out that identify variances in neural activity and neurotransmitter levels that are associated with people having a depressive episode; It has a distinct pathology and has definate biological markers, unlike most personality disorders (as a contrast). But there is scant data on what differences persist in the brain post-recovery... only a marked increase in the odds of relapse.

In that respect, it is much like chicken pox. If you've had it, the virus remains in your body, and for 80% of the population, after the acute infection, there are no further symptoms for the rest of their life. But for some, complications arise in the form of shingles. Depression is like that as well, but without the pathogen -- once you've had it, something is changed in you, forever.

Re:Cure v. treatment

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that's not true. I know that that message is out there -- because I had a therapist who said to me what you just said to me. But my therapist was wrong.

I survived severe depression that I experienced from about 11-19. For reference, I am 34 today. What helped me the most was journaling, journaling, journaling, re-evaluating my self-talk on a minute second by second basis, focusing on love, and a powerful willingness to recognize that the entire world can be wrong about things, and I don't need to let it get to me. I don't know if my telling you that helps at all, but I do want to tell you: It is entirely possible to get out of depression, and on a permanent basis. You can completely rewire your thoughts from the inside out.

I get sad now and then, but it isn't at all the same thing as the deep and persisting depression.

Lying with statistics?

[gweihir]

Looks like it to me:

- "In addition, 44% of the Sparx group who carried out at least four of the seven challenges recovered completely."
- "In the conventional treatment group, only 26% recovered fully."

This seems to indicate high effectiveness of the Sparx treatment, yet it actually tells us absolutely nothing. The critically missing data is how many of the Sparx group completed four or more challenges. If it was 1%, them the overall effectiveness of Sparx may be as low as 0.44% and vastly lower than conventional treatment. If it was 100%, then Sparx has a 44% success rate and is vastly better than conventional treatment.

Either someone is intentionally lying here (remember, these people are psychologists and know how to do it) or the reporter is a nil-whit without a clue on how to report statistics.

It's not video games, in general.

[DaneM]

There have been multiple studies about how excessive gaming can lead to depression, and even a behavioral addiction. While I'm sure that taking this position is going to be massively unpopular among the /. crowd, I've experienced both the depressive and addictive aspect of video games, myself. Of course, I still love gaming, but I've found that if I don't exert some control over how much I play, my depression gets worse, and yes, I do get addicted (complete with a sort of emotional "withdrawal" when I stop playing).

Here's a reference, though better ones are surely out there:
http://www.videogamingaddiction.com.au/how-to-avoid-video-game-addiction-depression/

That being said, it may well be the nature of the games I play: mostly ultra-violent FPS games, and a few RPGs (Skyrim, etc.). While it's surely also unpopular to remind people about the article on /. a while back about such games "turning-off" certain parts of the brain (especially the area that more-or-less monitors whether our actions are considered "acceptable;" I don't remember the name for it), I'll point the phenomenon out, anyway. Notably, other parts of the brain are stimulated in much the opposite way (motor cortex, etc.), and can find benefit therein. (Link contains a good info-graphic.)
http://ansonalex.com/infographics/effect-video-games-brain/

Don't take this as me saying "video games are evil," because I don't believe that. Still, misuse can be a problem and can actually cause episodes of depression, as I've experienced, myself.

These researchers have probably hit on something important, and it would seem that the nature of the game plays a major role in how it affects a person. Congrats to them for being sensible about studying these things (rather than basing their findings on ideology). I should probably point out that this article deals only with comparison to traditional "talk therapy"--which not everyone finds helpful (and whose efficacy is extremely dependent on who's doing it)--and that this probably isn't dealing with severe, chemical depression, so much as socially-induced depression (which is certainly just as valid; it's simply different). Still, that the program was this helpful is quite remarkable.

Re:Better links

[Erpo]

I know it is futile to ask people to read an article before they comment on it, and I know it is equally futile to ask people who submit articles such as this to post links to original articles instead of second or third sources

I don't believe it's futile.

If you are submitting an article about an article in a scientific journal, please include a link to the original article in the original journal instead of a newspaper article based on a press release announcing the publication of the article.

If I were submitting an article about an article in a scientific journal to slashdot, it wouldn't occur to me to look for (or follow) a link to the original article. Whenever I search for information on a topic online and there is a link in the search results to an article in a scientific journal, that article is almost always behind a paywall. Even more frustrating, it's usually set up as a tease so that it *looks* like it's a link to the full article but turns out to be a page trying to sell me a subscription to their service (or $19.99 for three days of access to just that one article). I avoid these links due to how frustrating that experience is most of the time.

the official press release from the journal is available [bmj.com] and the full article itself [bmj.com] are available online

You seem to be informed about this sort of thing, and given how astonishing and tantalizing the prospect of full-text access is to me, I would appreciate some suggestions. Is there a way I can change my searching behavior so that I don't run into paywalls disguised as the full article? Is there a way I can change my behavior in general so that more full-text articles are available for free online?