WHAT THE STUDY ACTUALLY SAYS

For teens most at risk, CBT beat media-literacy lessons for gaming disorder

A German trial in 1,793 students found a cognitive-behavioural programme reduced gaming and internet-use disorder symptoms only in high-risk adolescents — not across the whole classroom.

Video-game dependency score at 12 months (lower is better)High-risk: CBT: 14.7; High-risk: media literacy: 17.7; All students: CBT: 8.8; All students: media literacy: 9.401020High-risk: CBT14.7High-risk: media literacy17.7All students: CBT8.8All students: media literacy9.4
Video-game dependency score at 12 months (lower is better)
GroupValue (value)
High-risk: CBT14.7
High-risk: media literacy17.7
All students: CBT8.8
All students: media literacy9.4
Video-game dependency score at 12 months (lower is better) Modified Video Game Dependency Scale. CBT = PROTECTtraining; media literacy = PROTECTinfo. Source: JAMA Network Open

Gaming disorder entered the international disease classification only recently, and schools now field a growing menu of programmes meant to head it off. A randomised trial published on 4 September in JAMA Network Open tested two of them against each other and reached a result that cuts against the instinct to teach everyone at once: the more intensive programme helped, but essentially only the adolescents who were already struggling [s1].

What the trial did

The PROTECTconfirm trial ran from July 2020 to August 2024 across 44 secondary schools in Baden-Württemberg, Germany, with follow-up at 1, 4 and 12 months [s1]. A total of 1,793 students were individually randomised — 896 to PROTECTtraining, a cognitive-behavioural-therapy (CBT) based programme, and 897 to PROTECTinfo, a structurally parallel media-literacy programme [s1]. Both consisted of four 90-minute sessions delivered weekly during school hours by trained local prevention professionals, with adherence protocols and live supervision [s1]. The mean age in each arm was 13.1 years [s1].

The design let the researchers ask two things at once: whether CBT beats media literacy, and whether prevention works better delivered universally (to everyone) or on an indicated basis (targeted at those already showing signs of a problem) [s1]. The primary outcome was symptom severity of gaming disorder and unspecified internet-use disorder at 12 months, measured with a modified version of the Video Game Dependency Scale [s1].

What it found

Across the whole sample, the two programmes were statistically indistinguishable. Mean scores at 12 months were 8.8 in the CBT arm versus 9.4 in the media-literacy arm — a between-group effect size (Cohen d) of just −0.07, with a confidence interval spanning zero [s1].

The picture changed in the subgroup that mattered most. Among 205 adolescents at high risk — those meeting two or more diagnostic criteria at baseline — CBT clearly outperformed media literacy: mean 12-month scores of 14.7 versus 17.7, with a between-group Cohen d of −0.30 (95% CI, −0.55 to −0.05) [s1]. That is a small-to-moderate effect, and its confidence interval stays below zero, meaning the advantage was statistically reliable in this group [s1]. Secondary outcomes — internalising, externalising and transdiagnostic symptoms — did not differ significantly between the programmes [s1].

How to read it

The honest summary is the authors' own: CBT worked, but as indicated prevention rather than universal prevention [s1]. Handing the more intensive programme to an entire cohort produced no measurable edge over a lighter media-literacy course; concentrating it on adolescents already at risk did. That is a useful and slightly deflating finding for the popular idea that a single classroom curriculum can inoculate everyone against problematic gaming.

Some caveats sit around the result. A Cohen d of −0.30 is modest, and the high-risk analysis rested on 205 of the 1,793 students, a much smaller sample than the headline. Both arms received an active programme, so this is a comparison of two interventions, not of treatment against nothing — media literacy may itself have helped, which would shrink the apparent gap. And the trial was conducted in one German region, which limits how far the specifics travel.

Why it matters

Prevention resources in schools are finite. The trial's practical message is about allocation: the more demanding CBT-based approach appears best spent on the students already showing signs of a problem, rather than spread thinly across every classroom [s1]. Whether that pattern holds elsewhere, and whether the 12-month benefit persists, are the questions a single trial leaves open.

This article is informational and does not constitute medical advice.

Sources

Sources

  1. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy vs Media Literacy for Prevention of Gaming Disorder and Unspecified Internet Use Disorder: A Randomized Clinical TrialJAMA Network Open , September 4, 2026
Related coverage