A Practical Directory For Screen Addiction Therapy

📊 Full opportunity report: A Practical Directory For Screen Addiction Therapy on IdeaNavigator AI — validation score, market gap, and execution plan.

Before you orderOffer from Amazon

Get smart everyday buys delivered free with Prime

• Fast, free delivery on millions of items
• Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
• Member-only deals all year

Start your free Prime trial →Free trial for eligible customers · Cancel anytime

As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.Hide

TL;DR

IdeaNavigator AI outlines a proposed directory for people seeking therapists with experience treating compulsive gaming, pornography use or social-media use. Its suggested pilot would recruit 50 verified specialists in three metro areas and track booked consultations; no launch, partners or results are reported.

IdeaNavigator AI has proposed a directory connecting people seeking help for compulsive screen use with therapists who document relevant training, treatment approaches and case experience. The concept remains a business proposal, not a reported launch; its suggested test would recruit 50 verified specialists across three metro areas and measure how many consultations each listing generates.

The proposed directory is aimed at individuals and parents looking for care related to gaming, pornography use or social-media compulsion. Patients would be able to filter clinicians by the type of concern, the age group served and whether telehealth is available. The proposal says the platform would verify therapists’ screen-specific qualifications and experience before listing them.

That verification is intended to address a problem described in the proposal: general therapist directories may allow clinicians to select a technology-addiction category without demonstrating a specific treatment protocol or substantial experience. The proposal says patients can spend money on intake appointments before discovering a clinician may not be equipped to address their particular concern. It does not provide data on how often that happens or the costs patients incur.

The suggested business model combines subscriptions paid by therapists for listings with fees tied to bookings. To test the idea, IdeaNavigator AI recommends recruiting 50 verified specialists in three metro areas, publishing patient-acquisition content and tracking booked consultations per listing per month. No results, recruitment commitments or operating platform are reported.

A Test of Specialist Matching

For people seeking care, the proposed service targets a practical barrier: finding a clinician whose experience matches a specific pattern of screen use, rather than relying on a broad directory category. If its verification process is credible and its listings are current, filters for presenting concern, age and telehealth could make it easier to identify possible providers before paying for an intake visit.

The proposal also highlights a gap between demand and clinician preparation, describing screen-related concerns as increasingly common in practices while specialized training lags. That characterization is not accompanied by prevalence figures, training data or independent evidence in the material provided. The pilot would test whether a curated directory can attract patients and produce bookings; it would not by itself establish that the listed treatment is effective or that screen-related conditions are becoming more prevalent.

The commercial model creates questions for users as well as clinicians. Subscription and booking revenue could support directory operations, but readers would need clear information about how verification works, how listings are ranked and whether payment affects visibility. Those details could shape trust in the service and the usefulness of its recommendations.

How the Proposed Directory Works

The concept sits within behavioral-health navigation, a field that helps people locate providers rather than delivering treatment itself. The proposed product focuses on one search task: locating a therapist who works with compulsive screen use. It is narrower than a general mental-health directory and distinguishes among gaming, pornography and social-media concerns.

Its central design choice is to make provider credentials and experience visible. Therapists would document screen-specific training, treatment approach and case experience, with the platform checking those details before publication. The proposal does not specify what documents would be required, who would review them, how often credentials would be renewed or what standard would qualify a therapist as a specialist.

The recommended pilot is a validation plan rather than a confirmed rollout. It sets a target of 50 verified specialists in three metro areas and proposes using content to attract patients, then measuring bookings per listing each month. The material does not name the cities, give a schedule or state that any therapists have enrolled.

Verification and Pilot Details

No launch or pilot is confirmed. The available information does not identify an operator, participating therapists, locations, start date or patient-acquisition budget. It also does not say whether a directory has been built or whether any consultations have been booked.

The proposed verification standard remains undefined. The concept does not explain how the platform would evaluate training, treatment methods or case experience, or how it would handle complaints and changes in a therapist’s practice. It also provides no independent evidence for the claim that specialized training is scarce or that patients commonly discover a mismatch only after paying an intake fee.

There are no reported measures of treatment quality, patient outcomes, cost to patients or the effect of paid listings on search results. The proposed booking metric could show whether users schedule consultations, but it would not establish whether the matches are clinically appropriate or lead to beneficial care.

Evidence Needed for a Pilot

The next stated step is to recruit 50 verified specialists in three metro areas, then use patient-acquisition content to bring prospective clients to the directory. If carried out, the test would track booked consultations per listing per month. No date has been announced for recruitment or for publishing results.

Readers evaluating any eventual service would need details on the credential-review process, provider coverage and fee disclosures, including whether subscription payments affect placement. Information about patient privacy, complaint handling and how the directory keeps listings accurate would also help clarify what users can expect. Until those details and pilot results are available, the directory should be understood as a proposed service rather than an established source of care.

Source: IdeaNavigator AI

Key Questions

Has the screen-addiction therapist directory launched?

No launch is reported. The directory is presented as a proposed concept, and no operating platform or launch date is identified.

Who would the directory be for?

It is proposed for people or parents seeking a therapist for concerns involving compulsive gaming, pornography use or social-media use.

How would therapists be verified?

The proposal says clinicians would document screen-specific training, treatment approach and case experience, which the platform would verify. It does not provide the review criteria or process.

How would the proposed pilot measure demand?

The plan calls for recruiting 50 specialists across three metro areas, attracting prospective patients with content and tracking booked consultations per listing per month. No pilot results are available.

Would a listing guarantee effective treatment?

No. A directory listing would not by itself establish treatment effectiveness or a suitable clinician-patient match. The proposal reports no clinical outcomes or independent evaluation.

Source: IdeaNavigator AI