Expert appraisal of criteria for assessing gaming disorder: An international Delphi study

Details

Ressource 1Download: Castro-Calvo_Addiction_2021.pdf (1187.23 [Ko])
State: Public
Version: Final published version
License: Not specified
Serval ID
serval:BIB_0EDA99C00948
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Expert appraisal of criteria for assessing gaming disorder: An international Delphi study
Journal
Addiction
Author(s)
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
ISSN
0965-2140
1360-0443
Publication state
In Press
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Language
english
Abstract
Background and aims
Following the recognition of ‘internet gaming disorder’ (IGD) as a condition requiring further study by the DSM‐5, ‘gaming disorder’ (GD) was officially included as a diagnostic entity by the World Health Organization (WHO) in the eleventh revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD‐11). However, the proposed diagnostic criteria for gaming disorder remain the subject of debate, and there has been no systematic attempt to integrate the views of different groups of experts. To achieve a more systematic agreement on this new disorder, this study employed the Delphi expert consensus method to obtain expert agreement on the diagnostic validity, clinical utility, and prognostic value of the DSM‐5 criteria and ICD‐11 clinical guidelines for GD.
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 gaming disorder (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.
Keywords
Gaming Disorder, Delphi, DSM, ICD, Diagnosis, Internet Gaming Disorder
Pubmed
Open Access
Yes
Create date
18/01/2021 10:53
Last modification date
03/02/2021 8:08
Usage data