| Literature DB >> 32183070 |
Kevin Rudolf1, Peter Bickmann1, Ingo Froböse1, Chuck Tholl1, Konstantin Wechsler1, Christopher Grieben1.
Abstract
The number of video game and eSports players is steadily rising. Since little is known about their health behavior to date, the present study examines the demographics and health behavior of video game and eSports players. In this cross-sectional study, data on demographics, health status, physical activity, nutrition, sleep, and video game usage were assessed via a web-based survey of n = 1066 players (91.9% male; 22.9 ± 5.9 years; body mass index (BMI): 24.6 ± 4.8 kg/m²) in Germany in 2018. The majority of respondents (95%) reported a good to excellent health status. Two thirds (66.9%) engaged in moderate to vigorous physical activity for more than 2.5 h/week. The average duration of sitting and sleep time was 7.7 ± 3.6 h/day and 7.1 ± 1.3 h/day, respectively. Mean fruit and vegetable consumption was 2.7 ± 1.8 portions/day. Video games were played for 24.4 ± 15.9 h/week on average. Partial Spearman correlations revealed poor positive associations of video game play time to sedentary behavior (rho = 0.15; p < 0.01) and BMI (rho = 0.11; p < 0.01), as well as a poor negative association to self-reported health status (rho = -0.14; p < 0.01). These results indicate the good subjective health of this target group. Nevertheless, the high amount of video game play time and its poor negative association to health status indicate a need for specific health promotion strategies for this target group.Entities:
Keywords: eSports; gaming; health promotion; nutrition; physical activity; sleep; training; video games
Year: 2020 PMID: 32183070 PMCID: PMC7142975 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17061870
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Sample characteristics.
| Group | Age 1 | Gender 2 [“male”] | BMI 3 | Education 2 | Employment 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22.9 (5.9) | 980 (91.9) | 24.6 (4.8) | 556 (52.5) | 348 (32.6) | |
| 22.9 (5.0) | 12 (85.7) | 23.1 (4.9) | 5 (35.7) | 1 (7.1) F,R,O | |
| 26.1 (5.8)A,R | 33 (100.0) O | 26.0 (5.2) | 16 (48.5) | 17 (51.5) P,A,R | |
| 22.1 (5.0)F,O | 342 (96.3) R,O | 25.0 (5.1) | 162 (51.3) | 106 (29.9) F,O | |
| 22.8 (6.1)F | 521 (90.3) A,O | 24.4 (4.6) | 307 (53.2) | 188 (32.6) P,F | |
| 25.0 (7.6)A | 72 (82.8) F,A,R | 24.6 (4.2) | 46 (52.8) | 36 (41.4) P,A | |
|
| < 0.01 | < 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.07 | < 0.01 |
1: Kruskal–Wallis test; 2: Fisher’s exact test; 3: ANCOVA (controlling for age and gender). Superscript letters indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) to other groups in the same column: P—professional players; F—Former professional players; A—Amateurs; R—Regular players; O—Occasional players.
Figure 1Sports activities of sample participants. Multiple responses were possible (n = 1100).
Data on health behavior of the sample.
| Group | Health Status | Physical Activity [mode] | Sedentary Behavior [hours/day] | Sleep Time [hours/night] | Sleep Quality [mode] | Fruit and Vegetable Consumption |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| “good” | “2.51–5 h per week” | 7.7 (3.6) | 7.1 (1.3) | “quite good” | 2.7 (1.8) | |
| “good” | “more than 5 h per week” | 7.3 (3.3) | 7.8 (1.3)F | “quite good” | 3.5 (2.2) | |
| “very good” | “2.51–5 h per week” | 7.6 (3.9) | 6.7 (1.4)P | “quite good” | 3.0 (2.2) | |
| “good” | “2.51–5 h per week” | 8.0 (3.7) | 7.2 (1.3) | “quite good” | 2.6 (1.7) | |
| “very good” | “2.51–5 h per week” | 7.7 (3.6) | 7.0 (1.3) | “quite good” | 2.7 (1.8) | |
| “very good” | “more than 5 h per week” | 7.0 (3.1) | 7.2 (1.1) | “quite good” | 2.8 (1.4) | |
|
| 0.90 | 0.84 | 0.34 | 0.04 | 0.02* | 0.46 |
Kruskal–Wallis test. Superscript letters indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) to other groups in the same column: P—professional players; F—Former professional players. * no statistically significant post-hoc difference after adjusting for multiple testing.
Prioritized game titles of the sample (n = 1066).
| Game Title | Frequency |
|---|---|
|
| 522 (49.0) |
|
| 157 (14.7) |
|
| 51 (4.8) |
|
| 50 (4.7) |
| 45 (4.2) | |
|
| 43 (4.0) |
|
| 24 (2.3) |
|
| 21 (2.0) |
|
| 19 (1.8) |
|
| 12 (1.1) |
| Other games * | 122 (11.5) |
* Games with less than 10 nominations were summed up as “other games“.
Data on video game play time and training characteristics.
| Group | Play Time 1 | Structured Training 2
| Form of Training | % of Overall Training Time that Takes Place at the PC/console ³ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24.4 (15.9) | 295 (30.2) | “training with friends” | 90 (16.8) | |
| 28.6 (12.0) | 8 (57.1) R | “training alone and/or with random opponents/players” | 91.0 (11.1) | |
| 25.3 (20.1) | 17 (51.5) R | “training in a team without a coach” | 84.2 (21.6) | |
| 28.4 (16.6) R | 206 (58.4) R | “training in a team without a coach” | 89.4 (13.8) | |
| 21.7 (14.7) A | 64 (11.1) P,F,A | “training with friends” | 80.7 (22.4) | |
|
| <0.01 | <0.01 | - | 0.12 |
“Form of training” (multiple responses possible) and “Percentage of overall training time that takes place at the PC/console” were only answered by players participating in structured training. * Occasional players (n = 87) did not answer questions regarding video game usage, one missing data set; 1: ANCOVA (controlling for age, gender and BMI); 2: Fisher’s exact test; 3: Kruskal–Wallis test; Superscript letters indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) to other groups in the same column: P—professional players; F—Former professional players; A—Amateurs; R—Regular players.
Figure 2Content of players’ structured trainings (n = 295). Values represent respondents who stated that they always train or often train for that aspect in their training sessions.