Expert appraisal of criteria for assessing gaming disorder: an international Delphi study.
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Castro-Calvo Jesús, King Daniel L, Stein Dan J, Brand Matthias, Carmi Lior, Chamberlain Samuel R, Demetrovics Zsolt, Fineberg Naomi A, Rumpf Hans-Jürgen, Yücel Murat, Achab Sophia, Ambekar Atul, Bahar Norharlina, Blaszczynski Alexander, Bowden-Jones Henrietta, Carbonell Xavier, Chan Elda Mei Lo, Ko Chih-Hung, de Timary Philippe, Dufour Magali, Grall-Bronnec Marie, Lee Hae Kook, Higuchi Susumu, Jimenez-Murcia Susana, Király Orsolya, Kuss Daria J, Long Jiang, Müller Astrid, Pallanti Stefano, Potenza Marc N, Rahimi-Movaghar Afarin, Saunders John B, Schimmenti Adriano, Lee Seung-Yup, Siste Kristiana, Spritzer Daniel T, Starcevic Vladan, Weinstein Aviv M, Wölfling Klaus, Billieux Joël
Аннотация
METHODS: A total of 29 international experts with clinical and/or research experience in GD completed three iterative rounds of a Delphi survey. Experts rated proposed criteria in progressive rounds until a pre-determined level of agreement was achieved.
RESULTS: For DSM-5 IGD criteria, there was an agreement both that a subset had high diagnostic validity, clinical utility and prognostic value and that some (e.g. tolerance, deception) had low diagnostic validity, clinical utility and prognostic value. Crucially, some DSM-5 criteria (e.g. escapism/mood regulation, tolerance) were regarded as incapable of distinguishing between problematic and non-problematic gaming. In contrast, ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines for GD (except for the criterion relating to diminished non-gaming interests) were judged as presenting high diagnostic validity, clinical utility and prognostic value.
CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi survey provides a foundation for identifying the most diagnostically valid and clinically useful criteria for GD. There was expert agreement that some DSM-5 criteria were not clinically relevant and may pathologize non-problematic patterns of gaming, whereas ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines are likely to diagnose GD adequately and avoid pathologizing.