Skip to main content
MMedVellum
MCQsExamsAtlas
DashboardPricing
MMedVellum

The exam atlas that feels like a flagship product — evidence-graded topics and exam tools for MBBS and fellowship preparation. Built to scale to fifty specialties. Educational content only — not medical advice.

llms.txt·psychiatry LLM catalog · sitemap

Atlas

  • Specialty atlas
  • MBBS / Core medicine
  • Dermatology
  • ICU Fellowship (CICM)
  • Anaesthesia
  • Emergency Medicine
  • Psychiatry Fellowship

Study & account

  • MCQ practice
  • Practice alias
  • Exam tools
  • Dashboard
  • Pricing
  • Sign in

© 2026 MedVellum. For education only — not a substitute for clinical judgement.

Clinical Atlas Prestige · Evidence-first

Psych VivasAddiction psychiatry — behavioural addictions

Psych Vivas · Addiction psychiatry — behavioural addictions

Gaming and internet addiction — structured clinical viva

Fellowship viva on gaming disorder vs special interest, ICD-11/DSM status, risk after forced limits, CBT/family care, and realistic pharmacotherapy.

clinical
On this page & tools

Target exams

FRANZCPMRCPsychABPNMD-DNB

Target exams

FRANZCPMRCPsychABPNMD-DNB
Prompt
You are the child and adolescent / addiction psychiatry registrar. A 14-year-old with autism spectrum disorder and ADHD plays an MMORPG 10 hours nightly, has school refusal for 3 months, and parents have tried router locks that trigger meltdowns and threats of self-harm. They ask whether this is 'just his special interest' or 'addiction,' demand naltrexone 'like for alcohol,' and refuse any family sessions. Discuss nosology, formulation, risk, and stepped care.

Interpretation

Reveal interpretation

This viva tests dual formulation skill: neurodevelopmental special interest / ADHD dysregulation can co-exist with ICD-11 gaming disorder when control is lost and school function collapses. Candidates must not choose a false dichotomy ("only ASD" vs "only addiction"). Name I-PACE as the mechanism frame and distinguish ICD-11 clinical GD from DSM-5-TR Section III research IGD.[1][2][5]

Risk. Self-harm threats after forced limits require structured assessment, safety planning, and careful negotiated boundaries — not pure punishment. Family refusal of sessions is a therapeutic problem to engage, not ignore; school liaison is essential.[4]

Treatment hierarchy. CBT adapted for youth/ASD communication style, ADHD treatment optimisation, sleep rescue, and harm-reduction contracts. Naltrexone is not the evidence default for pure GD (contrast gambling literature); do not invent a licensed anti-gaming opioid antagonist pathway here. No pure "detox admission" without risk indication.[3][1]

Key points

Special interest ≠ automatic exclusion of GD

ASD/ADHD history informs scaffolding but does not erase ICD-11 criteria when impairment and loss of control are clear.

I-PACE explains maintenance

Person × affect × cognition × execution loops with game design reinforcement — viva mechanism gold.

CBT/family first; no magic tablet

Stevens-level CBT evidence; refuse uncritical naltrexone-for-gaming requests without indication and psychosocial package.
[2] [3] [4]

References

  1. [1]Saunders JB, et al. Gaming disorder: Its delineation as an important condition for diagnosis, management, and prevention J Behav Addict, 2017.PMID 28816494
  2. [2]Brand M, et al. Integrating psychological and neurobiological considerations... (I-PACE) model Neurosci Biobehav Rev, 2016.PMID 27590829
  3. [3]Stevens MWR, et al. Cognitive-behavioral therapy for Internet gaming disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis Clin Psychol Psychother, 2019.PMID 30341981
  4. [4]Paulus FW, et al. Internet gaming disorder in children and adolescents: a systematic review Dev Med Child Neurol, 2018.PMID 29633243
  5. [5]Petry NM, et al. An international consensus for assessing internet gaming disorder using the new DSM-5 approach Addiction, 2014.PMID 24456155