Expert appraisal of criteria for assessing gaming disorder: an international Delphi study.
DSM
Delphi
ICD
diagnosis
gaming disorder
internet gaming disorder
Journal
Addiction (Abingdon, England)
ISSN: 1360-0443
Titre abrégé: Addiction
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9304118
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2021
09 2021
Historique:
revised:
23
09
2020
received:
26
05
2020
accepted:
06
01
2021
pubmed:
16
1
2021
medline:
1
10
2021
entrez:
15
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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 11th 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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
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 11th 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 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33449441
doi: 10.1111/add.15411
pmc: PMC8451754
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2463-2475Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 110 049/Z/15/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Addiction published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction.
Références
J Affect Disord. 2014 Mar;156:67-75
pubmed: 24359862
Schizophr Bull. 2008 May;34(3):435-43
pubmed: 17768307
World Psychiatry. 2018 Oct;17(3):363-364
pubmed: 30192089
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2019 Sep;104:1-10
pubmed: 31247240
Addiction. 2014 Sep;109(9):1399-406
pubmed: 24456155
Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2015 Sep;17(9):72
pubmed: 26216590
Schizophr Bull. 2014 Nov;40(6):1347-55
pubmed: 24727194
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005 Dec 01;5:37
pubmed: 16321161
Psychiatr Serv. 2013 May 1;64(5):452-7
pubmed: 23370444
Nature. 2019 Sep;573(7774):346
pubmed: 31530926
J Behav Addict. 2017 Sep 1;6(3):285-289
pubmed: 28816514
J Psychiatr Res. 2014 Jun;53:103-10
pubmed: 24581573
J Behav Addict. 2020 Apr 01;9(1):1-13
pubmed: 32359228
Addiction. 2018 Nov;113(11):2145-2146
pubmed: 30007117
J Behav Addict. 2019 Mar 1;8(1):16-24
pubmed: 30663331
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Nov 15;102(46):16569-72
pubmed: 16275915
J Clin Med. 2019 Jun 28;8(7):
pubmed: 31261841
Addiction. 2016 Jan;111(1):167-75
pubmed: 26669530
Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2017 Jul;71(7):445-458
pubmed: 27193187
Can J Nurs Adm. 1994 Sep-Oct;7(3):29-42
pubmed: 7880844
Clin Psychol Rev. 2016 Feb;43:58-66
pubmed: 26704173
Am J Psychiatry. 2017 Mar 1;174(3):230-236
pubmed: 27809571
Cognition. 2015 Sep;142:191-204
pubmed: 26046424
J Behav Addict. 2017 Sep 1;6(3):267-270
pubmed: 28033714
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2015 Oct;49(10):887-97
pubmed: 26296368
BMJ. 1995 Aug 5;311(7001):376-80
pubmed: 7640549
Curr Opin Psychol. 2020 Dec;36:49-54
pubmed: 32480020
Transcult Psychiatry. 2019 Aug;56(4):748-774
pubmed: 31084279
Addiction. 2019 Jun;114(6):1095-1109
pubmed: 30133930
BMC Psychiatry. 2014 Sep 13;14:241
pubmed: 25213799
Addiction. 2015 May;110(5):842-51
pubmed: 25598040
J Behav Addict. 2019 Jun 1;8(2):288-294
pubmed: 31120319
Am J Med Qual. 2006 Nov-Dec;21(6):382-93
pubmed: 17077420
J Behav Addict. 2016 Sep;5(3):474-84
pubmed: 27554504
J Behav Addict. 2018 Mar 1;7(1):1-9
pubmed: 29529886
Addiction. 2017 Oct;112(10):1709-1715
pubmed: 28198052
J Behav Addict. 2018 Sep 1;7(3):556-561
pubmed: 30010410
Addiction. 2016 Jan;111(1):175-8
pubmed: 26669531
Addiction. 2021 Sep;116(9):2463-2475
pubmed: 33449441
Clin Psychol Rev. 2014 Jun;34(4):298-308
pubmed: 24786896
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Apr;67(4):401-9
pubmed: 24581294
J Behav Addict. 2017 Sep 1;6(3):271-279
pubmed: 28816494
Addiction. 2017 Oct;112(10):1723-1724
pubmed: 28891143
Addict Behav. 2018 Jul;82:114-121
pubmed: 29522932
J Behav Addict. 2015 Sep;4(3):119-23
pubmed: 26014667
J Behav Addict. 2017 Jun 1;6(2):103-109
pubmed: 27599673