It’s been over a month now that I have joined the OTR Bristol. Time flies! I still feel very overwhelmed with the kindness of people in the office and I still catch myself thinking: I wish I had this support when I was young.

I set up my own fundraiser page about a week ago and I was aiming to promote it, push it, ask for money and talk about OTR work a lot on my blog too. But life got in the way in a most ridiculous way and made this fundraiser truly relevant to me: I have received bad family news. I started grieving. Not really grieving for the people who are slowly slipping away, but for myself – for the childhood, I had or did not have. And so I have stopped my bereavement volunteering for now (I am obligated and quite frankly too close to the topic at the moment) but I know I can go back anytime.  Things got a bit emotional in my private life and I started to think a lot about the reality of my childhood. I stopped posting and took time to rest and think. I spent a lot of time with my friends and family reminding myself who I am today and how I got here, but also where exactly I have started from.

We all have stories, you see, stories we do not want to talk about. I am always open about my controlling mother, ex, past friends and I am not worried about the current contacts assuming the role of an abuser – because a long time ago I have learned that I was never really a victim. E. Rosevelt said once: “One cannot humiliate you without your consent” and I think she was right, but there is more to power in a family set up. People who are close to us tend to assume they know us and can or would take advantage of our weaknesses. However it is their version of our relationship and we can still have our take on it, and that take can be very different. We can stop the power game simply by not getting involved. We can define our own boundaries and lines of safety with or without the involvement of the abuser. We just need to be clear on our self-worth and our own goals. This way, instead of hardening, we become even kinder and more empathic. It works. But we also have to keep our darker stories in mind and must never forget – because there are other people, young people, out there who need help today.

I did not have OTR, but I had teachers, priests, literary role models, friends and positive outlook on my future. There was always a part of me that knew my worth. I have experienced a kind, bonding fatherly love and I have received a great compass of values (not always applied, I’m not perfect, but at least known!). So after a week of contemplating my own, complicated childhood and a week of grieving the one I did not get to have, I have also realised just how far I have come thanks to all those good people in my past life. I wish I had a space and people like the OTR folk back when I was a young person – my own battles would have been much faster, stronger, more – but I had others who were there for me in smaller, slower experiences. I had hope and I knew kindness.

So today I have just one message to my readers: let’s stop for a moment and think of all those young people who need help, but also those who do not even understand the idea of hope, love and kindness. Let’s just for a second imagine how their reality must feel like.

.

And let’s have a very good look at our life, count our blessings and convert our experiences into hopefulness. I took my new Canon camera out and treated myself to time for photography. I took a few photo walks in this amazing sunshine and streets of Bristol, admiring street art and warm, friendly people. I planned another two walks with friends this week. I made time for art which always makes me feel a bit better. But here is the thing: I can do it because I spent 40 years of my life coming to this point, fighting and constructively converting my hate and pain into work and action. Which is why I love OTR so much.

So this is my first ask – I kindly ask you, if you are able to do so today, to donate to our 5K walk to help OTR teams help those who might just be young and hopeless now. Thank you!

Here is the full link: https://mydonate.bt.com/fundraisers/5kpokemonday – I will be walking, catching Pokemon and supporting an amazing organization! 🙂

You might have seen on social media channels that I am currently working on a podcast investigating the impact of digital technologies on our wellbeing.

Here is a little bit more background I have written for the podcast blog – the full article is here.

___

Cyber wellness is a combination of two concepts: digital literacy and wellbeing. The concept is currently widely used in Singapore by the Ministry of Education for digital literacy projects for young people at schools to ensure that they are all using the web safely but also proactively make the most of it.

There is a lot of discussions now, in 2018, about the increasing importance of mental health and the negative impact of the web on our health, but we feel that conversations are not balanced. On one hand, we have technology developers and providers, practitioners and fans promoting and enjoying the digital landscapes. On the other hand, we have regulators, educators, health professional and parents who worry about the impact of technology on children,m young people and on adults.

In January 2018 WTO introduced gaming addiction as an official disorder. America’s Association of Psychotherapists included the Internet Gaming Disorder in its DSM-5 pointing out the need for further study. Health practitioners warn us about the impact of screen time, FOMO, isolation and gaming addictions. New game addict retreats appear on the market all around the world.

Technology is used to improve our health and mental health. We see smart tech and health monitoring devices entering our everyday lives. We see health data collected via the main mobile platforms and used to improve research. We see medical field benefiting from various areas of tech innovation. We use apps to improve our every day health and wellbeing: fitness, diet, mindfulness, gratitude and creativity.

The common discourse is focussed mainly on the negative impact of digital on health, but it is based more often on myths than actual findings. Scientific research on the impact of digital technologies on various aspects of our wellbeing is still very rarely considered in the public discourse.

Cyberpsychology is a relatively young science studying important themes like comparison and low self-esteem, depression, social isolation, negative relationships, FOMO (fear of missing out), sleep deprivation, addictive behaviour, eating disorders, social media and ADHD, positive correlates of social media, social media and memes, psychotherapy in cyberspace. Since 1995 we can read about it in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. Since 2007 we can enjoy their findings in the Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychological Research on Cyberspace. There is also the Journal of CyberTherapy & Rehabilitation, as well as Cyberpsychology, Behaviour and Social Networking journal.

The impact of the Internet on our wellbeing is also included in our very own UWE Psycho-social research here in Bristol and specific areas of UWE work – for example, work done by Dr Amy Slater and her team around body image.

In Oxford, Dr Andrew Przybylski researched the impact of online games on children. His research showed that a moderate amount of online gaming resulted in better-adjusted children that those who did not play any games at all – which can be linked to the new media but also lifestyle our children grow up in. Sonia Livingstone described the changes in family life and the new media landscape in her 2002 book: “Young People and New Media: Childhood and the Changing Media Environment” describing area of family life we sometimes discard but that have a significant impact on our media consumption: for example the fact that our children grow up in isolation from their peers in the offline world (driven to school, taken to groups, not allowed to socialise freely offline) so the online channels provide them with new, alternative ways of connecting with peers, playing and learning. Susan Greenfield (also based in Oxford) wrote a good summary of the relevant research in 2014 in her book “Mind Change: How Technologies are Leaving Their Mark on Our Brains” only to conclude that way more research is needed to understand this topic. She herself continues her work in this area.

Sonia Livingstone based in London is since a few years now involved in the EU wide study on the impact of tech on children and families. The research results are published in the regular EU Kids Online reports and impact the way the International Safer Internet Day is celebrated. In the recent few years, we have noticed the purely negative sentiment shifting towards the need to build strong digital skills amongst both children, as well as their parents. In February 2018 Livingstone and team published finding showing the positive impact of technology on the quality of life in families but also increased the need for parents to know that their children are actually safe online.

Dana Boyd, an MIT researcher focussing on teenagers and their use of social media, points out that we need a good definition of what we mean by “safe Internet”. She published her findings in her book in 2014 “It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens” describing her extensive research in important areas: privacy, online identity, addiction, dangers and bullying, inequality and literacy – and generally asking young people how they manage their lives in those new channels. Her findings are certainly not as negative as the discourse in the mainstream media.

Jane McGonigal, American game designer advocates the use of digital technologies to channel positive attitudes and explains a lot of positive effects of games in her 2001 book “Reality is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How they Change the World” tapping into findings from also a fairly new field of positive psychology.

At the same time, the public discourse around mental health and wellbeing increasingly mentions the negative impact of digital technologies: information overload, need to rest from screens, fear of missing out, online bullying, addiction to online games and the overwhelming sense of increased social isolation. We do also see increased levels of addictions related to the Internet and studies showing that the social web tends to exaggerate the tendencies we already have (if they are positive, the impact of the web is positive too; if our habits and tendencies are harmful, the social web might make them more impactful too).

In the marketing and business world, it is widely recognised that addiction to mobile and other tech devices is fuelling stress and burnout and has been linked to anxiety and depression. Increasingly, a number of research and partnership initiatives are being put in place to address the positive and negative effects of cyber-overload and how to achieve a state of cyber-wellbeing.

April 2018, saw the Pew Research Center launch their extensive report: ‘The Future of Well-being in a Tech-Saturated World’ which explored at length the positive and negative aspects of digital life on people’s health, mental fitness and happiness. While in May 2018, Thrive Global, set up by cyber wellbeing pioneer, Arianna Huffington whose mission is to end stress and burnout, announced an important partnership with MindShare Partners, whose mission is to ensure that those suffering from mental health and burnout conditions in the workplace get heard and helped to thrive. Just these two key areas of activity in the cyber-wellbeing arena from Pew Research and Thrive Global in Spring 2018 – let alone myriad other similar initiatives – are a clear indicator that the complex topic of cyber-wellbeing is driving an ongoing debate around the world. As podcast authors of Bristol’s Cyber-Wellness Podcast, we hope that our own podcast findings can serve to make a small contribution, from Bristol to the global debate around cyber-wellbeing.

The mental health provision in the UK is based on the 2008 New Economics Foundation report “5 Ways to Wellbeing”. The report outlines core recommendations for improving our overall well being and serves as a basis for the overall provision of talking therapies around the UK until today. Connect, keep active, take notice, keep learning and give are recommendations resembling core findings of positive psychology. The report also mentions the value of nature, healthy diet and meaningful work. Many of those recommendations are aligned with findings published by Johann Hari in his book “Lost Connections: Uncovering the Real Causes of Depression – and the Unexpected Solutions” about underlying causes of depression. Harri suggests looking at the roots of our mental health problems and instead of disconnecting, even more, finding ways to reconnect with our communities, meaningful work, values and with nature. We do not really know if digital technologies would play a positive or negative role in this process.

__

You can find out more about the Cyber-Wellness Podcast here. You can listen to the first episodes here.

What a start to the year. The World Health Organisation added gaming addiction to their list of disorders due to addictive behaviours defining it as follows:

Gaming disorder is characterized by a pattern of persistent or recurrent gaming behaviour (‘digital gaming’ or ‘video-gaming’), which may be online (i.e., over the internet) or offline, manifested by: 1) impaired control over gaming (e.g., onset, frequency, intensity, duration, termination, context); 2) increasing priority given to gaming to the extent that gaming takes precedence over other life interests and daily activities; and 3) continuation or escalation of gaming despite the occurrence of negative consequences. The behaviour pattern is of sufficient severity to result in significant impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas of functioning. The pattern of gaming behaviour may be continuous or episodic and recurrent. The gaming behaviour and other features are normally evident over a period of at least 12 months in order for a diagnosis to be assigned, although the required duration may be shortened if all diagnostic requirements are met and symptoms are severe.

Hazardous gaming can be also found in the section on factors influencing health status or contact with health services:

Hazardous gaming refers to a pattern of gaming, either online or offline that appreciably increases the risk of harmful physical or mental health consequences to the individual or to others around this individual. The increased risk may be from the frequency of gaming, from the amount of time spent on these activities, from the neglect of other activities and priorities, from risky behaviours associated with gaming or its context, from the adverse consequences of gaming, or from the combination of these. The pattern of gaming is often persists in spite of awareness of increased risk of harm to the individual or to others.

Both definitions are quite sensible as they contain the limitations and definitions of healthy and unhealthy gaming habits, related to both online and offline gaming too. The initial reactions are obviously varied, but it’s a very brave step – one which is really difficult to judge at this stage because we simply don’t seem to have enough of research on the impact of online gaming and because online gaming is a very complex topic – one which is often demonised, but rarely taken seriously.

When the Americal Psychiatric Association contemplated adding Internet Addiction Disorder to their fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(DSM–5) it became apparent that we are dealing with a complex set of potential mental disorders altogether. I strongly recommend this short but insightful summary by Mark D. Griffiths. In the end, after a consultation with the industry and look at available research (for example some here) they decided not to include the Internet Addiction Disorder in the DSM-V, but made a strong recommendation that the further research is needed. They also changed the definition of the gambling as a behavioral addiction rather than as a disorder of impulse control which also allowed them to include the internet gaming in this area. Internet Addiction Disorder does have a wiki page and is not a new term but it is still handled carefully by health professionals and the relevant bodies.

So today WHO announcing a new definition of gaming addiction and adding it to the list of mental disorders send a strong message to the world.

In this entire discussion, you will see three groups of voices. On one hand, there is the gaming industry, Silicon Valley, tech enthusiasts, and professionals, but also researchers who see a positive impact of online gaming (on kids in the UK you will find Sonia Livingstone doing a lot of work with EU too, in the US for research on youth online check out Danah Boyd, for positive impact of gaming Jane McGonigal and her twin sister Kelly, both here). On the other side of the spectrum, you will see media, governments, legal institutions and the general public using the online gaming as an easy scapegoat for issues that are complex and often unaddressed (problems with social isolation, self-esteem, anxieties, toxic relationships, aggression, poverty etc). And in the middle, you will find health professionals (GPs, therapists, youth workers even) who are expected to provide support to the community with a very little good research and stand from leading organisations, oftentimes simply not knowing what to do.

Gaming is not exactly a tabu topic but the opinions about it are divided and not always informed, which does not help the actual individuals who enjoy gaming and feel a positive impact of it, nor the gamers who struggle with addictive behaviours but simply cannot seek professional help. There are increasingly more and more reahbs, camps and other ideas to help, but an average parent or spouse might suffer and struggle because the web and the mainstream media scare us, terrify us even and simply don’t offer any practical solutions.

So when I mention that WHO’s move is brave I am really worried because an average web user or a member of the general public will most certainly now use this fact to demonise the online gaming even more and leave the suffering, addicted individuals to their own devices or simply switch the wifi off. This is not helpful as it does not address the roots of the problem. It makes it worse. On the other hand for the health professionals and researchers, the WHO’s decision opens the doors for more research and more action to offer professional support and almost forces governments to actually look into this and provide funds for that support. Initially it will be directed at the overall gaming disorder, of course, but the more we study it, we will realise its complexity and learn to separate the old problems (anxiety, social isolation, bullying etc) from the new ones (addictive feedback loops of some games, social media related complex reinforcement of self-esteem issues etc). We will learn how to talk about both Internet addictions and gaming addictions too.

I remain hopeful. I really worry that a lot of kids and adult games will suffer from a lot of negative labeling, but I hope they have networks to support them in this first phase. In the long run, I think this is a good move, a natural step in the process of unpacking something new. Something that has an impact on us but it’s so early. We simply don’t know what impact it has on us. It might be that one day we will realise that the web is just like the street – an avenue on which other mental issues, the already known ones, are born. It might be that the technologists are a bit blind and we will discover new mental disorders and learn to support people suffering from them.

What we all need to remember is that every one of us is different and we all react to new stimuli differently (well but also badly). Those of us who suffer from bad habits and see friends and children falling into the abyss of useless gaming really need to have a good look around to identify the why’s and help but also look at the positive impact of online games and accept it – which is not easy. Those of us who work in tech, gaming industry or simply are advocates of innovation, need to learn to accept the fact that every new piece of innovation can come with its curses. We cannot pretend that we don’t know people (of any age) who have suffered from too much gaming in their lives in some way.

So I do like the WHO’s definition as it defines the scope of the impact of the actual disorder – it looks at the negative impact on health and it does give a year to diagnose an individual too. But we have to remember that every new definition can very easily turn into a label and labels are not nice. They stop us from seeing the human behind it. Let’s hope we won’t go down this route. Ultimately it will boil all boil does to how open those discussions are going to be and how informed and research based the choices of decision makers are going to be.

As a student therapist, I am happy to see that the health professionals will hopefully receive more support in this new and already fast-changing area of our lives.